0
PISA 2012
Evaluating school systems
to improve education
Embargo until
3 December
OECD EMPLOYER Paris time
11:00
BRAND

Pl...
2

PISA in brief
• Over half a million students…
– representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 countries/economies

… took ...
3

PISA in brief
• Key principles
– ‘Crowd sourcing’ and collaboration
• PISA draws together leading expertise and institu...
4

Each year OECD countries spend 200bn$ on math education in school

What do 15-year-olds know…
…and what can they do wit...
High mathematics performance
Mean score … Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)

Average performance
of 15-year-ol...
High mathematics performance

Singapore
Chinese Taipei

Hong Kong-China

Average performance
of 15-year-olds in
mathematic...
2012

Shanghai-China
Singapore
Hong Kong-China

Chinese Taipei
Korea

Macao-China

Japan
Switzerland

Liechtenstein
Estoni...
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Is...
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Is...
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Is...
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Is...
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Is...
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Is...
26

Of the 65 countries…
…45 improved at least in one subject
28

Performance of countries
in a level playing field
How the world would look if students around the world
were living in...
340

Shanghai-China
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Chinese Taipei
Viet Nam
Macao-China
Korea
Japan
Liechtenstein
Poland
Switzer...
31

It is not just about poor kids
in poor neighbourhoods…
…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods
%

30

Hong Kong-China
Korea +
Liechtenstein
Macao-China +
Japan
Switzerland
Belgium Netherlands Germany
Poland +
Canada F...
40

Gender differences remain
10

-40

Jordan
Qatar
Thailand
Malaysia
Iceland
U.A.E.
Latvia
Singapore
Finland
Sweden
Bulgaria
Russian Fed.
Albania
Monte...
10

-40

Jordan
Qatar
U.A.E.
Bulgaria
Thailand
Montenegro
Finland
Latvia
Lithuania
Greece
Malaysia
Turkey
Slovenia
Kazakhs...
Jordan
Qatar
Bulgaria
Montenegro
Finland
Slovenia
U.A.E.
Lithuania
Thailand
Latvia
Sweden
Iceland
Greece
Croatia
Norway
Se...
44

Math teaching ≠ math teaching
PISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ
and interpret mathematica...
1.50

1.00

Viet Nam
Macao-China
Shanghai-China
Turkey
Uruguay
Greece
Hong Kong-China
Chinese Taipei
Portugal
Brazil
Serbi...
Sweden
Iceland
Tunisia
Argentina
Switzerland
Brazil
Luxembourg
Ireland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Costa Rica
Austria
Liechten...
Czech Republic
Macao-China
Shanghai-China
Viet Nam
Uruguay
Finland
Costa Rica
Sweden
Japan
Chinese Taipei
Italy
Israel
Nor...
Relationship between mathematics performance
and students' exposure to applied mathematics

48

Fig I.3.2

Mean score in m...
52

The share of immigrant students in OECD countries
increased from 9% in 2003 to 12% in 2012…
…while the performance dis...
Finland

Mexico

France

Change between 2003 and 2012 in immigrant students' mathematics
performance – before accounting f...
20

65
46
52
35
55
21
29
26
24
16
15
16
15
23
09
13
13
11
09
11
18
11
18
12
10
10
09
11
07
09
13
08
06
03
07
04
03
06
05
0...
Percentage of resilient students

59

Fig II.2.4

20

18

A resilient student is situated in the bottom quarter of
the PIS...
60

20

80

Albania
Finland
Iceland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Estonia
Ireland
Spain
Canada
Poland
Latvia
Kazakhstan
United Sta...
62

Disciplinary climate improved
Teacher-student relations improved between 2003 and 2012 in all but
one country; and dis...
-0.2

Tunisia
Germany
Finland
France
Latvia
Sweden
Uruguay
Australia
New Zealand
Ireland
Hungary
Russian Federation
Nether...
Norway
Jordan
Portugal
Iceland
Estonia
Argentina
Switzerland
Latvia
Mexico
Finland
Peru
Costa Rica
Russian Fed.
Hong Kong-...
Countries with large proportions of truants
perform worse in mathematics

Fig IV.1.22

Adjusted by per capita GDP
650

Sha...
72

Social and emotional dimensions matter too
73

Motivation to learn mathematics

Fig III.3.9

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the...
75

Countries where students have stronger beliefs
in their abilities perform better in mathematics

Fig III.4.5

OECD ave...
40

Colombia
Costa Rica
Peru
Israel
Luxembourg
Chile
Tunisia
Slovak Republic
Liechtenstein
Italy
Korea
Spain
Argentina
Bra...
78

Openness to problem solving

Fig III.3.4

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the fol...
79

Perceived self-responsibility for failure
in mathematics

Fig III.3.6

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or ...
Students open to problem solving perform better

80

Fig III.3.5

Score-point difference in mathematics associated with
St...
Korea
Chinese Taipei
Norway
Finland
Japan
Hong Kong-China
Denmark
Sweden
Iceland
Greece
Poland
Australia
Czech Republic
Un...
Korea
Chinese Taipei
Norway
Finland
Poland
Japan
Portugal
Iceland
Denmark
Hong Kong-China
Canada
Sweden
Australia
New Zeal...
85

Students' sense of belonging

Fig III.2.12

Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements:
L...
86

Students' sense of belonging

Fig III.2.12

Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements:
L...
87

Students’ attitudes towards school:
Learning outcomes

Fig III.2.15

Percentage of students who agree/disagree with th...
88

Students and perseverance

Fig III.3.2

Percentage of students who reported that the following statements describe som...
89

Students’ attitudes towards school:
Learning outcomes

Fig III.2.15

Percentage of students who agree/disagree with th...
90

Students’ intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics

Fig III.3.9

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "stro...
91

Students’ instrumental motivation to learn mathematics

Fig III.3.14

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "...
92

Students’ mathematics self-efficacy

Fig III.4.2

Percentage of students who feel very confident or confident about ha...
93

Students' mathematics self-concept

Fig III.4.7

Percentage of students who agree*/disagree** with the following state...
94

Students’ mathematics anxiety

Fig III.4.10

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the ...
95

Students' participation in mathematics-related activities

Fig III.4.16

Percentage of students who reported "agree" o...
Fig III.2.15

96

Malaysia

Albania

OECD average

Agree: School has taught me things which could
be useful in a job

Agre...
97

Also worth noting
o 85% of advantaged students but only 78% of disadvantaged
students say feel they belong at school
o...
98

The parent factor
Students whose parents have high educational expectations for
them tend to report more perseverance,...
Parents’ expectations for their child have a strong
influence on students’ behaviour towards school

100

Fig III.6.11

Pe...
Parents’ high expectations can nurture
students’ enjoyment in learning mathematics

101

Fig III.6.11

Change in the index...
Parents’ high expectations can foster
perseverance in their child

102

Fig III.6.11

Change in the index of perseverance ...
10
3

Schools make a difference
Grade repetition is negatively related to equity

Fig IV.1.4

Adjusted by per capita GDP

Greater equity
2

Variation in m...
Japan
Norway
Iceland
Russian Federation
Thailand +
Korea +
Finland +
Sweden
Poland
Greece Denmark
Czech Republic +
New Zea...
Belgium

Netherlands

France

Spain

Germany

Portugal

Italy

Austria

United States

Ireland

Canada

Australia

Slovak ...
In most countries, disadvantaged students are more likely
to have repeated a grade than advantaged students

Fig IV.2.3

S...
80

70

Greece
Austria
Czech Republic
Poland +
Liechtenstein +
Portugal
Japan Finland Macao-China Luxembourg Germany Slova...
113

Also worth noting
o Stratification in school systems (e.g. grade repetition
and selecting students at a young age for...
11
4

Money makes a difference…
…but only up to a point
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and
mathematics performance in PISA 2012

Fig IV.1.8

650

Cumulative expendi...
Among high-income countries
high-performers pay teachers more

Fig IV.1.10

Mathematics performance (score points)

650

P...
0

Chinese Taipei
Greece
Japan
Korea
Thailand
Hong Kong-…
Montenegro
Turkey
Shanghai-China
Viet Nam
Romania
Macao-China
Tu...
118

Teacher shortage

Fig IV.3.5

Percentage of students in schools whose principals reported that
the following phenomen...
Luxembourg
Jordan
Thailand
Turkey
Shanghai-China
Israel
Colombia
Peru
Chile
Netherlands
Mexico
Germany
Viet Nam
Russian Fe...
-0.5

Korea
Estonia
Israel
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Malaysia
Slovenia
Italy
Poland
Singapore
Argentina
Costa Rica
Netherlands
Por...
121

Adequacy of educational resources

Fig IV.3.8

Percentage of students in schools whose principals reported
that the f...
Singapore
Qatar
Australia
Chinese Taipei
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Hong Kong-China
Japan
Slovenia
France
United States
U....
0.50

-1.50

Peru
Costa Rica
Mexico
Brazil
Indonesia
Thailand
Colombia
New Zealand
Turkey
Argentina
United States
Uruguay
...
124

Quality assurance and school improvement

Fig IV.4.14

Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported tha...
125

Students' views of how conducive
classrooms are to learning

Fig IV.5.4

Percentage of students who reported that the...
120

Shanghai-China
Hong Kong-China
France
Slovak Republic
Macao-China
Italy
Switzerland
Qatar
Czech Republic
Israel
Thail...
127

Also worth noting

o Educational resources relate to student performance
– 33% of the variation in math performance i...
128

Also worth noting
o Most countries and economies with comparable data
between 2003 and 2012 have moved towards better...
12
9

High performers spend resources where
they are needed most
Countries with better performance in mathematics tend
to allocate educational resources more equitably
700

Adjusted by pe...
13
2

Governance matters
Schools with more autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to
perform better than schools wit...
Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and
assessments tend to perform better in mathematics

650

Fig IV.1....
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more collaboration

School auton...
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies

Fig ...
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements...
%

0

Finland
Belgium
Shanghai-China
Japan
Austria
Switzerland
Argentina
Macao-China
Uruguay
Peru
Germany
Costa Rica
Spain...
90

80

%

0

Finland
Uruguay
Greece +
Switzerland +
Ireland +
Belgium +
Sweden +
Japan +
Germany +
Norway +
Italy +
Hunga...
14
1

The issue is not how many charter schools
a country has…
…but how countries enable every school
to assume charter ty...
%

Hong Kong-China
Netherlands
Chile
Ireland
Korea
U.A.E.
United Kingdom
Indonesia
Australia
Qatar
Chinese Taipei
Argentin...
100

-50

Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong-China
Thailand
Viet Nam
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Indonesia
Italy
Kazakhstan
Japan
Czech R...
14
5

How the theory of school choice squares
with the reality in families
If offered a choice of schools for their child,...
School competition and mathematics performance

Fig IV.1.18

Adjusted by per capita GDP
650
Shanghai-China

There is no re...
A school’s particular approach to teaching is not a determining
factor when parents choose a school for their child

Fig I...
Expenses associated with schooling are a concern among
disadvantaged families

Fig IV.4.5

Percentage of parents who repor...
Financial aid for school is a greater concern among
disadvantaged parents

Fig IV.4.5

Percentage of parents who reported ...
For disadvantaged families, physical access
to school is a significant concern

Fig IV.4.5

Percentage of parents who repo...
Advantaged families tend to seek out schools whose students
are high achievers

Fig IV.4.5

Percentage of parents who repo...
A school’s reputation is a very important
consideration among advantaged families

Fig IV.4.5

Percentage of parents who r...
Advantaged parents tend to seek out schools with an active and
pleasant climate

Fig IV.4.5

Percentage of parents who rep...
Parents everywhere look for a safe school environment
for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Percentage of parents who reported that...
15
9

PISA 2012 Sample Question 4

Revolving Door
Correct Answer: in the range from 103 to 105.
Accept answers calculated ...
15

10

5

0
Hong Kong-China
Korea
Japan
Macao-China
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Belgium
Poland
Germany
New Zealand
Netherla...
Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org
• All national and international publications
• The complete micro-level dat...
Do you have an idea on how to use this data to
improve education in your country?
Would you like to work with us
to develo...
Backup slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

PISA 2012 Evaluating school systems to improve education

515,041

Published on

PISA 2012 is the programme’s 5th survey. It assessed the competencies of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science (with a focus on mathematics) in 65 countries and economies.

Around 510 000 students between the ages of 15 years 3 months and 16 years 2 months participated in the assessment, representing about 28 million 15-year-olds globally.

The students took a paper-based test that lasted 2 hours. The tests were a mixture of open-ended and multiple-choice questions that were organised in groups based on a passage setting out a real-life situation. A total of about 390 minutes of test items were covered. Students took different combinations of different tests. They and their school principals also answered questionnaires to provide information about the students' backgrounds, schools and learning experiences and about the broader school system and learning environment.

Published in: Education, Travel
3 Comments
19 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
515,041
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
167
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
731
Comments
3
Likes
19
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • For AUT: manually delete the dot for 2009Annex B4 (volume 1)Instructions: Countries can appear in five possible figures, depending on the scale used (350-750, 300-700, 250-650, 200-600, 150-550). Please note that the right-hand axis (proficiency levels) is specific to the left-hand scale chosen, so be sure to use the corresponding graphSelect data to filter the country/economy that you wish to showFour countries and economies that began their participation after PISA 2003 the right part of the graph needs to be covered as missing data are assumed by the graph to be 0. Use the Blue rectangle with white lines for this purpose
  • Figure I.2.15
  • Figure I.2.15
  • Figure I.2.15
  • Figure I.2.15
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • Shows OECD average – chart can be adapted, to show further countries This is a selection. Next slide contains all items for this index
  • Shows OECD average – chart can be adapted, to show further countries
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • (Fig. II.4.5)
  • Answer
  • Scores against 15-year-olds
  • Transcript of "PISA 2012 Evaluating school systems to improve education"

    1. 1. PISA 2012 Evaluating school systems to improve education Embargo until 3 December OECD EMPLOYER Paris time 11:00 BRAND Playbook Andreas Schleicher 1
    2. 2. 2 PISA in brief • Over half a million students… – representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 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 – Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy – Total of 390 minutes of assessment material … and responded to questions on… – their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school • Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on… – school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .
    3. 3. 3 PISA in brief • Key principles – ‘Crowd sourcing’ and collaboration • PISA draws together leading expertise and institutions from participating countries to develop instruments and methodologies… … guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests – Cross-national relevance and transferability of policy experiences • Emphasis on validity across cultures, languages and systems • Frameworks built on well-structured conceptual understanding of academic disciplines and contextual factors – Triangulation across different stakeholder perspectives • Systematic integration of insights from students, parents, school principals and system-leaders – Advanced methods with different grain sizes • A range of methods to adequately measure constructs with different grain sizes to serve different decision-making needs • Productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement at every level of the system .
    4. 4. 4 Each year OECD countries spend 200bn$ on math education in school What do 15-year-olds know… …and what can they do with what they know? Mathematics (2012)
    5. 5. High mathematics performance Mean score … Shanghai-China performs above this line (613) Average performance of 15-year-olds in Mathematics 580 Singapore 570 560 Chinese Taipei 540 Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland 530 510 500 490 480 470 Fig I.2.13 Korea 550 520 Hong Kong-China Poland Belgium Germany Austria Slovenia New Zealand Denmark France Czech Republic Latvia Luxembourg Portugal Spain Slovak Republic United States Connecticut Hungary Massachusetts Florida Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Viet Nam Australia Ireland United Kingdom Iceland Norway Italy Russian Fed. Lithuania Sweden Croatia Israel 460 450 Greece Serbia Turkey Romania 440 430 420 410 US Chile … 12 countries perform below this line Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia Mexico Low mathematics performance 26% of American 15-year-olds do not reach PISA Level 2 (OECD average 23%, Shanghai 4%, Japan 11%, Canada 14%, Some estimate long-term economic cost to be US$72 trillion )
    6. 6. High mathematics performance Singapore Chinese Taipei Hong Kong-China Average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics Korea Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Poland Belgium Germany Austria Slovenia New Zealand Denmark France Czech Republic Latvia Luxembourg Portugal Spain Slovak Republic United States Hungary Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Viet Nam Australia Ireland United Kingdom Iceland Norway Italy Russian Fed. Lithuania Sweden Croatia Israel Greece Serbia Turkey Romania Chile Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia Mexico Low mathematics performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities
    7. 7. 2012 Shanghai-China Singapore Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Korea Macao-China Japan Switzerland Liechtenstein Estonia Netherlands Poland Canada Belgium Finland Viet Nam Germany Strong socio-economic Austria Australia impact on student New Zealand Denmark Slovenia Ireland Iceland Czech Rep. performance 22France 26 24 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 UK Latvia Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy Russian Fed. US Spain Lithuania Sweden Slovak Rep. Hungary Croatia Israel Romania Bulgaria Greece Turkey Serbia United Arab Emirates Kazakhstan Thailand Chile Malaysia Mexico Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities 4 2 0
    8. 8. Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel socio-economic Strong Italy impact on student Japan performance Korea Luxembourg Mexico Slovak Rep. Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US 2012 Korea Japan Switzerland Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Estonia Canada Finland Socially equitable Austria Australia New Zealand Denmark Ireland Slovenia distribution of learning Iceland Czech Rep. opportunities France UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Israel Greece Turkey Chile Mexico
    9. 9. Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Slovak Rep. Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Korea Japan Switzerland Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Estonia Canada Finland Austria Australia New Zealand Denmark Ireland Slovenia Iceland Czech Rep. France UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Israel Greece Turkey Chile Mexico
    10. 10. Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Slovak Rep. Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Shanghai 2003 - 2012 Singapore Singapore Korea Japan Switzerland Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Estonia Canada Finland Austria Australia New Zealand Denmark Ireland Slovenia Iceland Czech Rep. France UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Israel Greece Turkey Chile Mexico
    11. 11. Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Slovak Rep. Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US 2003 - 2012 Singapore Korea Japan Switzerland Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Estonia Canada Finland Austria Australia New Zealand Denmark Ireland Slovenia Iceland Czech Rep. France UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Israel Greece Turkey Chile Mexico
    12. 12. Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Slovak Rep. Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US 2003 - 2012 Singapore Korea Japan Switzerland Brazil, Italy, MacaoEstonia Netherlands Poland China, Poland, Portugal, Canada Belgium Finland Germany Russian Austria Australia New Zealand Denmark Federation, Thailand Ireland Slovenia Iceland Czech Rep. France and Tunisia saw UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy significant US Spain improvements in math Sweden Hungary performance between Israel 2003 and 2012 (adding countries with more recent Greece Turkey trends results in 25 countries with improvements in math) Chile Mexico
    13. 13. Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Slovak Rep. Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US 2003 - 2012 Singapore Korea Japan Switzerland Estonia Netherlands Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Norway, the United States and Austria Australia New Zealand Denmark Ireland Switzerland improved equity Slovenia Czech Rep. France UK between Luxembourg 2012 2003 and Portugal Iceland Italy US Spain Hungary Sweden Israel Greece Turkey Chile Mexico Norway
    14. 14. 26 Of the 65 countries… …45 improved at least in one subject
    15. 15. 28 Performance of countries in a level playing field How the world would look if students around the world were living in similar social and economic conditions
    16. 16. 340 Shanghai-China Singapore Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Macao-China Korea Japan Liechtenstein Poland Switzerland Estonia Netherlands Germany Belgium Finland Canada Portugal Austria Czech Republic New Zealand Latvia France Slovenia Ireland Australia OECD average Turkey Slovak Republic Spain Hungary Luxembourg Italy Russian Federation United Kingdom Denmark Lithuania Croatia United States Norway Sweden Iceland Romania Israel Serbia Thailand Greece Bulgaria Chile Uruguay Malaysia Kazakhstan Cyprus5, 6 Mexico Costa Rica United Arab… Brazil Montenegro Tunisia Indonesia Peru Argentina Colombia Jordan Qatar Mean mathematics score 29 Mathematics performance in a level playing field Mean mathematics performance after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 Mean score at the country level before adjusting for socio-economic status Mean score at the country level after adjusting for socio economic status 600 580 560 540 520 500 480 460 440 420 400 380 360
    17. 17. 31 It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods… …but about many kids in many neighbourhoods
    18. 18. % 30 Hong Kong-China Korea + Liechtenstein Macao-China + Japan Switzerland Belgium Netherlands Germany Poland + Canada Finland New Zealand Australia Austria OECD average 2003 France Czech Republic Luxembourg Iceland Slovak Republic Ireland Portugal + Denmark Italy + Norway Hungary United States Sweden Spain Latvia Russian Federation Turkey Greece Thailand Uruguay Tunisia Brazil Mexico Indonesia 38 Percentage of top performers in mathematics in 2003 and 2012 2012 Fig I.2.23 2003 40 Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skills 20 10 0
    19. 19. 40 Gender differences remain
    20. 20. 10 -40 Jordan Qatar Thailand Malaysia Iceland U.A.E. Latvia Singapore Finland Sweden Bulgaria Russian Fed. Albania Montenegro Lithuania Kazakhstan Norway Macao-China Slovenia Romania Poland Indonesia United States Estonia Chinese Taipei Shanghai-China Belgium Turkey Greece France Hungary Serbia Slovak Republic Vietnam Canada Netherlands OECD average Portugal Uruguay Croatia Israel Czech Republic Australia United Kingdom Switzerland Germany Argentina Denmark Mexico New Zealand Tunisia Ireland Hong Kong-China Spain Brazil Japan Korea Italy Peru Austria Liechtenstein Costa Rica Chile Luxembourg Colombia Score-point difference (boys-girls) 41 Gender differences in mathematics performance Fig I.2.25 30 20 Boys perform better than girls 0 -10 -20 -30 Girls perform better than boys -50
    21. 21. 10 -40 Jordan Qatar U.A.E. Bulgaria Thailand Montenegro Finland Latvia Lithuania Greece Malaysia Turkey Slovenia Kazakhstan Sweden Albania Argentina Russian Fed. Romania Serbia Norway Indonesia Iceland Poland France Estonia Croatia Portugal United States Macao-China Uruguay Israel Singapore Germany Belgium Czech Republic Chinese Taipei Tunisia Viet Nam OECD average Brazil Italy Canada Hungary Netherlands Korea Ireland New Zealand Australia Shanghai-China Peru Switzerland Mexico Hong Kong-China Chile Slovak Republic Spain Austria Denmark Japan Costa Rica United Kingdom Luxembourg Liechtenstein Colombia Score-point difference (boys-girls) 42 Gender differences in science performance Fig I.5.12 30 20 Boys perform better than girls 0 -10 -20 -30 Girls perform better than boys -50
    22. 22. Jordan Qatar Bulgaria Montenegro Finland Slovenia U.A.E. Lithuania Thailand Latvia Sweden Iceland Greece Croatia Norway Serbia Turkey Germany Israel France Estonia Poland Romania Malaysia Russian Fed. Hungary Slovak Republic Portugal Italy Czech Republic Argentina OECD average Austria Kazakhstan Switzerland Macao-China Uruguay Canada Australia New Zealand Chinese Taipei Singapore Belgium Viet Nam United States Denmark Tunisia Brazil Luxembourg Spain Ireland Indonesia Netherlands Hong Kong-China Costa Rica United Kingdom Liechtenstein Japan Shanghai-China Mexico Korea Chile Peru Colombia Albania Score-point difference (boys-girls) 43 Gender differences in reading performance Fig I.4.12 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 In all countries and economies girls perform better than boys -60 -70 -80
    23. 23. 44 Math teaching ≠ math teaching PISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures
    24. 24. 1.50 1.00 Viet Nam Macao-China Shanghai-China Turkey Uruguay Greece Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Portugal Brazil Serbia Bulgaria Singapore Netherlands Japan Argentina Costa Rica Lithuania Tunisia New Zealand Czech Republic Israel Korea Latvia Qatar Italy United States Estonia Ireland Australia Mexico United Arab Emirates Norway Malaysia Kazakhstan United Kingdom Romania OECD average Albania Colombia Indonesia Sweden Belgium Peru Thailand Denmark Russian Federation Canada Slovak Republic Hungary Germany Croatia Luxembourg Montenegro Chile Poland Finland Austria Slovenia France Switzerland Jordan Liechtenstein Spain Iceland Index of exposure to word problems 45 Students' exposure to word problems Fig I.3.1a 2.50 2.00 Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed 0.50 0.00
    25. 25. Sweden Iceland Tunisia Argentina Switzerland Brazil Luxembourg Ireland Netherlands New Zealand Costa Rica Austria Liechtenstein Malaysia Indonesia Denmark United Kingdom Uruguay Lithuania Germany Australia Chile OECD average Slovak Republic Thailand Qatar Finland Portugal Colombia Mexico Peru Czech Republic Israel Italy Belgium Hong Kong-China Poland France Spain Montenegro Greece Turkey Slovenia Viet Nam Hungary Bulgaria Kazakhstan Chinese Taipei Canada United States Estonia Romania Latvia Serbia Japan Korea Croatia Albania Russian Federation United Arab Emirates Jordan Macao-China Singapore Shanghai-China Iceland Index of exposure to formal mathematics 46 Students' exposure to formal mathematics Fig I.3.1b 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
    26. 26. Czech Republic Macao-China Shanghai-China Viet Nam Uruguay Finland Costa Rica Sweden Japan Chinese Taipei Italy Israel Norway Estonia Hong Kong-China Austria Serbia Korea Croatia Latvia Slovak Republic Greece United Kingdom Ireland Luxembourg Belgium Montenegro Argentina Slovenia Bulgaria OECD average Lithuania Hungary Switzerland New Zealand Germany Turkey Denmark Russian Federation Singapore Iceland United States Spain Qatar Liechtenstein Poland Australia France Brazil Malaysia Peru Canada Chile United Arab Emirates Romania Tunisia Netherlands Portugal Colombia Albania Kazakhstan Jordan Mexico Indonesia Thailand Index of exposure to applied mathematics 47 Students' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.1c 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
    27. 27. Relationship between mathematics performance and students' exposure to applied mathematics 48 Fig I.3.2 Mean score in mathematics 510 490 470 OECD countries All participating countries and economies 450 430 0.0 never 0.5 1.0 rarely 1.5 2.0 sometimes Index of exposure to applied mathematics 2.5 3.0 frequently
    28. 28. 52 The share of immigrant students in OECD countries increased from 9% in 2003 to 12% in 2012… …while the performance disadvantage of immigrant students shrank by 11 score points during the same period (after accounting for socio-economic factors)
    29. 29. Finland Mexico France Change between 2003 and 2012 in immigrant students' mathematics performance – before accounting for students’ socio-economic status Denmark Switzerland - Belgium - Austria Sweden Netherlands Brazil Germany - Spain Iceland Greece 80 Liechtenstein 2012 Italy + Norway Portugal Luxembourg OECD average 2003 - Czech Republic Russian Federation Thailand United States United Kingdom Hong Kong-China Latvia Canada Ireland New Zealand - Turkey -20 Slovak Republic - Macao-China Australia - Hungary - Score point difference (without-with immig.) 54 Fig II.3.5 2003 100 Students without an immigrant background perform better 60 40 20 0 Students with an immigrant background perform better -40
    30. 30. 20 65 46 52 35 55 21 29 26 24 16 15 16 15 23 09 13 13 11 09 11 18 11 18 12 10 10 09 11 07 09 13 08 06 03 07 04 03 06 05 03 01 01 02 01 01 01 02 01 02 01 01 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 % Macao-China Luxembourg Qatar Hong Kong-China Ù.A.E. United States Canada New Zealand Switzerland Kazakhstan Belgium Austria Sweden Australia Norway United Kingdom Germany Greece Denmark Netherlands Israel OECD average Singapore Croatia Ireland Spain Slovenia Russian Fed. Italy Serbia Jordan Estonia Costa Rica Iceland Portugal Argentina Finland Montenegro Latvia Czech Republic Shanghai-China Mexico Malaysia Thailand Turkey Peru Hungary Slovak Republic Lithuania Chile Chinese Taipei Japan Brazil Colombia Tunisia Bulgaria Uruguay Romania Indonesia Poland Viet Nam Korea 56 Proportion of immigrant students in socio-economically disadvantaged, average and advantaged schools Socio-economically disadvantaged schools Fig II.3.9 Socio-economically advantaged schools 80 70 60 50 40 30 Percentage of immigrant students 10 0
    31. 31. Percentage of resilient students 59 Fig II.2.4 20 18 A resilient student is situated in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in the country of assessment and performs in the top quarter of students among all countries, after accounting for socio-economic status. 16 14 12 Socio-economically disadvantaged students not only score lower in mathematics, they also report lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and share many characteristics of advantaged highachievers. % 10 8 6 4 2 More than 10 % resilient Between 5%-10% of resilient students Less than 5% Shanghai-China Hong Kong-China Macao-China Viet Nam Singapore Korea Chinese Taipei Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Estonia Netherlands Poland Canada Finland Belgium Portugal Germany Turkey OECD average Italy Spain Latvia Ireland Australia Thailand Austria Luxembourg Czech Republic Slovenia United Kingdom Lithuania France Norway Iceland New Zealand Russian Fed. United States Croatia Denmark Sweden Hungary Slovak Republic Mexico Serbia Greece Israel Tunisia Romania Malaysia Indonesia Bulgaria Kazakhstan Uruguay Brazil Costa Rica Chile Colombia Montenegro U.A.E. Argentina Jordan Peru Qatar 0
    32. 32. 60 20 80 Albania Finland Iceland Sweden Norway Denmark Estonia Ireland Spain Canada Poland Latvia Kazakhstan United States Mexico Colombia Costa Rica Russian Fed. Malaysia Jordan New Zealand Lithuania Greece Montenegro United Kingdom Argentina Australia Brazil Portugal Indonesia Chile Thailand Romania Tunisia Switzerland Peru Uruguay Croatia U.A.E. Macao-China Serbia Viet Nam Korea ong Kong-China Singapore Austria Italy Luxembourg Czech Republic Japan Bulgaria Israel Qatar Shanghai-China Germany Slovenia Slovak Republic Turkey Belgium Hungary Liechtenstein Netherlands Chinese Taipei Variation in student performance as % of OECD average variation 61 Variability in student mathematics performance between and within schools Fig II.2.7 100 80 Performance differences between schools 40 OECD average 20 0 Performance variation of students within schools 40 60 OECD average 100
    33. 33. 62 Disciplinary climate improved Teacher-student relations improved between 2003 and 2012 in all but one country; and disciplinary climate also improved during the period, on average across OECD countries and in 27 individual countries
    34. 34. -0.2 Tunisia Germany Finland France Latvia Sweden Uruguay Australia New Zealand Ireland Hungary Russian Federation Netherlands Slovak Republic Greece United States Brazil Switzerland OECD average 2003 Spain Poland Portugal Canada Belgium Turkey Macao-China Austria Italy Liechtenstein Denmark Mexico Thailand Indonesia Korea Iceland Czech Republic Norway Luxembourg Hong Kong-China Japan Mean index change In most countries and economies, the disciplinary climate in schools improved between 2003 and 2012 0.4 0.3 Fig IV.5.13 Change between 2003 and 2012 in disciplinary climate in schools 0.5 Disciplinary climate improved 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 Disciplinary climate declined -0.3
    35. 35. Norway Jordan Portugal Iceland Estonia Argentina Switzerland Latvia Mexico Finland Peru Costa Rica Russian Fed. Hong Kong-China Liechtenstein Thailand Poland Colombia Brazil Macao-China Canada Luxembourg Chile Viet Nam Netherlands Spain United Kingdom Israel Germany Kazakhstan Montenegro Malaysia Indonesia Lithuania Czech Republic Uruguay Ireland Tunisia Qatar OECD average Denmark U.A.E. Sweden Australia Bulgaria Austria Italy Belgium Turkey Korea Slovak Republic Serbia Greece Romania Shanghai-China New Zealand United States Singapore Japan Croatia Hungary Slovenia Chinese Taipei 64 Differences in disciplinary climate explained by students' and schools' socio-economic profile Fig II.4.9 Proportion of variation explained by students' socio-economic status Proportion of variation explained by students' and schools' socio-economic status % 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
    36. 36. Countries with large proportions of truants perform worse in mathematics Fig IV.1.22 Adjusted by per capita GDP 650 Shanghai-China Mathematics performance (score points) 600 Viet Nam Chinese Taipei Hong Kong-China Korea Japan Poland Singapore R² = 0.16 Estonia Netherlands Latvia Belgium Finland Slovenia Czech Rep. Germany SwitzerlandNew Zealand Canada Lithuania 500 France Russian Fed. Austria Australia UK Portugal Hungary Spain Bulgaria Romania Italy USA Thailand Norway Sweden Malaysia Turkey Greece 450 Kazakhstan Uruguay Montenegro Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Albania Jordan Tunisia Colombia 400 Indonesia Luxembourg UAE Argentina Peru 550 350 Qatar 300 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage of students in schools who skipped at least one day of school in the two weeks prior to the PISA test 70
    37. 37. 72 Social and emotional dimensions matter too
    38. 38. 73 Motivation to learn mathematics Fig III.3.9 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: United Kingdom Shanghai-China I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics I do mathematics because I enjoy it I look forward to my mathematics lessons I enjoy reading about mathematics 0 10 20 30 40 % 50 60 70
    39. 39. 75 Countries where students have stronger beliefs in their abilities perform better in mathematics Fig III.4.5 OECD average 650 Mean mathematics performance 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 -0.60 Shanghai-China Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea R² = Chinese Taipei Macao-China Japan Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Canada Liechtenstein Finland Germany Poland Belgium Viet Nam Slovenia Denmark New Zealand Latvia Portugal Italy Austria Australia Russian Fed. Hungary Luxembourg Spain Croatia Slovak Republic Greece Norway Turkey Israel Sweden Serbia Czech Republic Lithuania U.A.E. Iceland Romania United Kingdom Malaysia Thailand United States Ireland Bulgaria Kazakhstan Chile Montenegro France Costa Rica Mexico Uruguay Albania Brazil Argentina Tunisia Colombia Qatar Jordan Indonesia Peru -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy 0.80 0.36 1.00 1.20
    40. 40. 40 Colombia Costa Rica Peru Israel Luxembourg Chile Tunisia Slovak Republic Liechtenstein Italy Korea Spain Argentina Brazil Portugal Greece Japan Austria Uruguay Mexico Hong Kong-China Bulgaria Turkey Indonesia Hungary Viet Nam United States Romania U.A.E. Chinese Taipei Canada Ireland Belgium Kazakhstan Czech Republic OECD average Croatia France Shanghai-China Montenegro Poland Serbia Malaysia Estonia Qatar Macao-China Netherlands New Zealand Norway Lithuania Slovenia Denmark Jordan Switzerland Australia Germany Latvia Russian Fed. Sweden Singapore United Kingdom Thailand Finland Iceland Score-point difference (boys-girls) 77 Greater self-efficacy among girls could shrink the gender gap in mathematics performance, particularly among the highest-performing students Fig III.7.12 Gender gap among the highest-achieving students (90th percentile) Gender gap adjusted for differences in mathematics self-efficacy between boys and girls Gender gap 30 20 10 0 -10 -20
    41. 41. 78 Openness to problem solving Fig III.3.4 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: United Kingdom United States I like to solve complex problems I can easily link facts together I seek explanation for things I am quick to understand things I can handle a lot of information 0 10 20 30 40 % 50 60 70
    42. 42. 79 Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics Fig III.3.6 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: United Kingdom United States Sometimes I am just unlucky The teacher did not get students interested in the material Sometimes the course material is too hard This week I made bad guesses on the quiz My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week I’m not very good at solving mathematics problems 0 20 40 % 60 80
    43. 43. Students open to problem solving perform better 80 Fig III.3.5 Score-point difference in mathematics associated with Students who feel that they can handle a lot of one unit of the index of students' openness to problem solving information, seek explanations for things, can Average student 60 easily link facts together, and like to solve complex problems – score 30 points higher in mathematics, on average Change in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 Korea New Zealand Australia United Kingdom Finland Canada Czech Republic Sweden Lithuania Ireland Denmark Chinese Taipei Norway France Austria Spain Estonia Portugal OECD average United States Latvia Macao-China Liechtenstein Shanghai-China Iceland Hong Kong-China Greece Slovenia Switzerland Hungary Japan Germany Luxembourg Chile Poland Viet Nam Slovak Republic Singapore Russian Fed. Italy Mexico Belgium Netherlands Costa Rica Uruguay Croatia Turkey Israel Peru U.A.E. Serbia Tunisia Romania Jordan Argentina Bulgaria Malaysia Brazil Qatar Thailand Kazakhstan Indonesia Colombia Montenegro Albania Score-point difference Change in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students
    44. 44. Korea Chinese Taipei Norway Finland Japan Hong Kong-China Denmark Sweden Iceland Greece Poland Australia Czech Republic United Kingdom Portugal Macao-China Estonia Canada Ireland France Shanghai-China Malaysia Viet Nam OECD average Spain Netherlands Liechtenstein Germany Italy Latvia Slovenia Russian Fed. Austria Belgium Luxembourg New Zealand Hungary Lithuania Switzerland United States Chile Croatia Jordan Turkey Qatar Tunisia Slovak Republic Singapore U.A.E. Serbia Thailand Mexico Montenegro Kazakhstan Costa Rica Uruguay Albania Israel Colombia Argentina Bulgaria Brazil Indonesia Romania Peru Score-point difference 81 Students who enjoy learning mathematics perform better Fig III.3.13 Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics Average student Change in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students Change in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30
    45. 45. Korea Chinese Taipei Norway Finland Poland Japan Portugal Iceland Denmark Hong Kong-China Canada Sweden Australia New Zealand Spain Greece Qatar Malaysia Viet Nam Netherlands OECD average Estonia Belgium Lithuania United States France Luxembourg Jordan Thailand Tunisia Slovenia Hungary Shanghai-China Germany Italy Latvia Ireland Czech Republic Macao-China Croatia United Kingdom U.A.E. Russian Fed. Turkey Chile Slovak Republic Israel Mexico Switzerland Austria Bulgaria Serbia Montenegro Indonesia Kazakhstan Peru Argentina Costa Rica Brazil Uruguay Albania Singapore Colombia Liechtenstein Romania Score-point difference 82 Students who believe that learning mathematics is useful perform better Fig III.3.17 Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of instrumental motivation to learn mathematics Average student Change in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students Change in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20
    46. 46. 85 Students' sense of belonging Fig III.2.12 Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements: Liechtenstein OECD average Agree: I am satisfied with my school Agree: Things are ideal in my school Agree: I feel happy at school Disagree: I feel lonely at school Agree: I feel like I belong at school 0 20 40 60 % 80 100
    47. 47. 86 Students' sense of belonging Fig III.2.12 Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements: Liechtenstein OECD average Agree: I am satisfied with my school Agree: Things are ideal in my school Agree: I feel happy at school Disagree: I feel lonely at school Agree: Other students seem to like me Disagree: I feel awkward and out of place in my school Agree: I feel like I belong at school Agree: I make friends easily at school Disagree: I feel like an outsider (or left out of things) at school 0 20 40 60 % 80 100
    48. 48. 87 Students’ attitudes towards school: Learning outcomes Fig III.2.15 Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements: Malaysia Albania OECD average Agree: School has taught me things which could be useful in a job Agree: School has helped give me confidence to make decisions Disagree: School has been a waste of time Disagree: School has done little to prepare me for adult life when I leave school 0 20 40 60 % 80 100 120
    49. 49. 88 Students and perseverance Fig III.3.2 Percentage of students who reported that the following statements describe someone "very much like me" or "mostly like me" (*) or "not much like me" or "not at all like me" (**) Kazakhstan OECD average Agree: I continue working on tasks until everything is perfect Agree: I remain interested in the tasks that I start Disagree: I put off difficult problems Disagree: When confronted with a problem, I give up easily 0 20 40 60 80 100
    50. 50. 89 Students’ attitudes towards school: Learning outcomes Fig III.2.15 Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements: Malaysia Albania OECD average Agree: School has taught me things which could be useful in a job Agree: School has helped give me confidence to make decisions Disagree: School has been a waste of time Disagree: School has done little to prepare me for adult life when I leave school 0 20 40 60 % 80 100 120
    51. 51. 90 Students’ intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics Fig III.3.9 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: Albania OECD average I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics I do mathematics because I enjoy it I look forward to my mathematics lessons I enjoy reading about mathematics 0 20 40 60 % 80 100
    52. 52. 91 Students’ instrumental motivation to learn mathematics Fig III.3.14 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: Peru OECD average I will learn many things in mathematics that will help me get a job Mathematics is an important subject for me because I need it for what I want to study later on Learning mathematics is worthwhile for me because it will improve my career prospects and chances Making an effort in mathematics is worth it because it will help me in the work that I want to do later on 0 20 40 60 % 80 100
    53. 53. 92 Students’ mathematics self-efficacy Fig III.4.2 Percentage of students who feel very confident or confident about having to do the foll owing tasks in mathematics: Shanghai-China OECD average Calculating the petrol-consumption rate of a car Solving an equation like 2(x+3)=(x+3)(x-3) Finding the actual distance between two places on a map with a 1:10 000 scale Solving an equation like 3x+5=17 Understanding graphs presented in newspapers Calculating how many square metres of tiles you need to cover a floor Calculating how much cheaper a TV would be after a 30% discount Using a <train timetable> to work out how long it would take to get from one place to another 50 60 70 80 % 90 100
    54. 54. 93 Students' mathematics self-concept Fig III.4.7 Percentage of students who agree*/disagree** with the following statements: United Arab Emirates OECD average Agree: In my mathematics class, I understand even the most difficult work Agree: I have always believed that mathematics is one of my best subjects Agree: I learn mathematics quickly Agree: I get good <grades> in mathematics Disagree: I am just not good at mathematics 0 20 40 60 % 80 100
    55. 55. 94 Students’ mathematics anxiety Fig III.4.10 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: Tunisia OECD average I worry that I will get poor <grades> in mathematics I feel helpless when doing a mathematics problem I get very nervous doing mathematics problems I get very tense when I have to do mathematics homework I often worry that it will be difficult for me in mathematics classes 0 20 40 60 % 80 100
    56. 56. 95 Students' participation in mathematics-related activities Fig III.4.16 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: Jordan OECD average I participate in a mathematics club I programme computers I play chess I do mathematics more than 2 hours a day outside of school I take part in mathematics competitions I do mathematics as an <extracurricular> activity I help my friends with mathematics I talk about mathematics problems with my friends 0 10 20 30 40 % 50 60 70
    57. 57. Fig III.2.15 96 Malaysia Albania OECD average Agree: School has taught me things which could be useful in a job Agree: School has helped give me confidence to make decisions Disagree: School has been a waste of time Disagree: School has done little to prepare me for adult life when I leave school 0 20 40 60 % 80 100 120
    58. 58. 97 Also worth noting o 85% of advantaged students but only 78% of disadvantaged students say feel they belong at school o More than one in three students in OECD countries say they had arrived late for school in the two weeks prior to the PISA test; and more than one in four students reported that they had skipped a class or a day of school during this period o Better teacher-student relations are strongly associated with greater student engagement at school o Even when girls perform as well as boys in mathematics, they tend to report less perseverance, less openness to problem solving, less motivation to learn mathematics, less self-belief in their ability to learn mathematics and more anxiety about mathematics than boys, on average; they are also more likely than boys to attribute failure in mathematics to themselves .
    59. 59. 98 The parent factor Students whose parents have high educational expectations for them tend to report more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics, and more confidence in their own ability to solve mathematics problems than students of similar background and academic performance, whose parents hold less ambitious expectations for them.
    60. 60. Parents’ expectations for their child have a strong influence on students’ behaviour towards school 100 Fig III.6.11 Percentage-point change in arriving late for school that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree 4 2 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 Hungary Korea Croatia Hong Kong-China Macao-China Italy Portugal Chile Mexico Belgium (Flemish) -16 Germany Percentage-point change 0
    61. 61. Parents’ high expectations can nurture students’ enjoyment in learning mathematics 101 Fig III.6.11 Change in the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree 0.50 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 Germany Mexico Macao-China Croatia Hungary Portugal Chile Hong Kong-China Italy Korea 0.00 Belgium (Flemish) Mean index change 0.40
    62. 62. Parents’ high expectations can foster perseverance in their child 102 Fig III.6.11 Change in the index of perseverance that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 Macao-China Korea Croatia Germany Hong Kong-China Chile Hungary Mexico Belgium (Flemish) Italy 0.00 Portugal Mean index change 0.30
    63. 63. 10 3 Schools make a difference
    64. 64. Grade repetition is negatively related to equity Fig IV.1.4 Adjusted by per capita GDP Greater equity 2 Variation in mathematics performance explained by socioeconomic status (%) 4 Macao-China 6 Kazakhstan Hong Kong-China Estonia Jordan Indonesia Norway Qatar Thailand Iceland Mexico Finland Canada Tunisia Japan Korea Italy UAE Serbia Croatia Russian Fed. Sweden Montenegro Lithuania Viet Nam Australia Turkey Argentina Latvia Switzerland Netherlands UK Brazil Greece Colombia Belgium Slovenia Ireland USA Shanghai-China Poland Czech Rep. Spain Singapore Israel Austria R2=0.05 Denmark Costa Rica Romania Germany New Zealand Chinese Taipei R2=0.07 Portugal 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Bulgaria 22 Chile Peru Luxembourg Hungary France Slovak Rep. 24 Uruguay 26 -5 Less equity 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage of students who have repeated at least one grade 35 40 45
    65. 65. Japan Norway Iceland Russian Federation Thailand + Korea + Finland + Sweden Poland Greece Denmark Czech Republic + New Zealand Australia Slovak Republic + Canada Latvia Ireland Hungary Austria United States OECD average 2003 Turkey Mexico Indonesia Hong Kong-China Italy Liechtenstein Switzerland Germany Netherlands France Spain + Portugal Luxembourg Brazil Belgium + Uruguay Tunisia Macao-China - Percentage of repeaters in 2003 and 2012 2012 Tab IV.2.18 70 2003 60 50 40 % 30 20 10 0
    66. 66. Belgium Netherlands France Spain Germany Portugal Italy Austria United States Ireland Canada Australia Slovak Republic New Zealand Denmark Finland Sweden Korea Czech Republic Poland Slovenia United Kingdom Israel Iceland Estonia Norway Japan USD, PPPs Grade repetition is an expensive policy Fig IV.1.5 Total cost per repeater (one grade year) Total annual cost, relative to total expenditure on primary and secondary education (%) 60000 14 50000 12 10 40000 8 30000 % 6 20000 4 10000 2 0 0
    67. 67. In most countries, disadvantaged students are more likely to have repeated a grade than advantaged students Fig IV.2.3 Socio-economically disadvantaged student (ESCS=-1) Socio-economically average student (ESCS = 0 ) Socio-economically advantaged student (ESCS = 1 ) Probability of repeating a grade 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 300 350 400 Mathematics score (score points) 450 500
    68. 68. 80 70 Greece Austria Czech Republic Poland + Liechtenstein + Portugal Japan Finland Macao-China Luxembourg Germany Slovak Republic Mexico + OECD average 2003 Indonesia Turkey Denmark Italy Thailand Hungary Belgium Brazil Latvia + Tunisia Sweden + Switzerland Iceland Korea Hong Kong-China Uruguay Spain Canada + Netherlands United States Russian Fed. Australia New Zealand Ireland Change between 2003 and 2012 in ability grouping 2012 Fig IV.2.11 2003 % 90 + 2012 higher than 2003 - 2012 lower than 2003 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
    69. 69. 113 Also worth noting o Stratification in school systems (e.g. grade repetition and selecting students at a young age for different “tracks” or types of schools) is negatively related to equity; and students in highly stratified systems tend to be less motivated than those in less-stratified systems
    70. 70. 11 4 Money makes a difference… …but only up to a point
    71. 71. Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and mathematics performance in PISA 2012 Fig IV.1.8 650 Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000 Mathematics performance (score points) Shanghai-China Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more 600 Singapore Korea 550 Japan Switzerland PolandCanada Finland Netherlands Viet Nam Estonia Belgium Germany Czech Republic Australia Austria New Zealand Slovenia Ireland Denmark Latvia France UK Norway Portugal Iceland Lithuania Slovak Republic Croatia Italy Sweden United States Israel Hungary Spain Turkey 500 R² = 0.01 Luxembourg 450 Bulgaria Thailand Chile Mexico Montenegro Uruguay Malaysia 400 Tunisia Brazil Jordan Colombia Peru 350 R² = 0.37 300 0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs) 180 000 200 000
    72. 72. Among high-income countries high-performers pay teachers more Fig IV.1.10 Mathematics performance (score points) 650 Per capita GDP less than USD 20 000 In 33 countries schools where a higher 600 share of principals reported that teacher shortages hinder learning tend to show lower performance 550 Shanghai-China Per capita GDP over USD 20 000 Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Macao-China Japan R² = 0.09 Netherlands Finland Canada Belgium Austria Australia Germany Czech Rep. Iceland Ireland Latvia France Denmark New Zealand Slovenia UK Slovak Rep. Norway Italy Luxembourg Portugal Spain USA Hungary Croatia Israel Sweden Lithuania Romania Greece Bulgaria Thailand Malaysia Uruguay Chile Tunisia Montenegro Qatar Indonesia Colombia Argentina Peru Jordan Estonia 500 450 400 Poland Among low-income countries a host of other resources are the principal barriers 350 R² = 0.05 300 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Teachers' salaries relative to per capita GDP (%) 160 180 200 220
    73. 73. 0 Chinese Taipei Greece Japan Korea Thailand Hong Kong-… Montenegro Turkey Shanghai-China Viet Nam Romania Macao-China Tunisia Croatia Hungary Malaysia New Zealand Ireland Liechtenstein Costa Rica Czech Republic Australia Bulgaria Netherlands Jordan Belgium Latvia Spain Argentina OECD average Indonesia Singapore Russian Fed. Austria Iceland France Brazil Uruguay Lithuania Israel Qatar Slovak Republic Canada Estonia Germany U.A.E. Slovenia Serbia Italy Finland Colombia Chile United Kingdom Switzerland Luxembourg United States Sweden Kazakhstan Portugal Peru Poland Denmark Norway Mexico In many countries, more advantaged than disadvantaged students attend after-school lessons Fig IV.3.11 Percentage of all students participating in after-school lessons Students in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Students in the top quarter of socio-economic status 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10
    74. 74. 118 Teacher shortage Fig IV.3.5 Percentage of students in schools whose principals reported that the following phenomena hindered student learning "to some extent" or "a lot": Slovenia OECD average Lack of qualified science teachers Lack of qualified mathematics teachers Lack of qualified language-of-instruction teachers Lack of qualified teachers of other subjects 0 5 10 15 % 20 25
    75. 75. Luxembourg Jordan Thailand Turkey Shanghai-China Israel Colombia Peru Chile Netherlands Mexico Germany Viet Nam Russian Fed. Uruguay Norway Kazakhstan Indonesia Belgium Italy Malaysia Australia Brazil Iceland U.A.E. Singapore New Zealand Korea Switzerland Estonia Macao-China Costa Rica OECD average Sweden Argentina Tunisia Austria Qatar Ireland Chinese Taipei France Denmark United Kingdom Hong Kong-China Albania Japan Canada Slovak Republic Latvia Greece United States Czech Republic Croatia Finland Montenegro Romania Hungary Lithuania Slovenia Spain Serbia Portugal Bulgaria Poland Mean index Teacher shortage Mean index Top quarter of this index Fig IV.3.5 Bottom quarter of this index 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5
    76. 76. -0.5 Korea Estonia Israel Kazakhstan Latvia Malaysia Slovenia Italy Poland Singapore Argentina Costa Rica Netherlands Portugal Colombia Bulgaria France Finland Tunisia Lithuania Qatar Macao-China Thailand Spain Greece Switzerland Romania Norway Russian Fed. Japan Austria Montenegro Croatia Canada U.A.E. OECD average Germany Denmark Hungary United Kingdom Luxembourg Hong Kong-China Belgium Iceland Jordan Peru Viet Nam Ireland United States Chile Czech Republic Serbia Turkey Mexico Indonesia Uruguay Shanghai-China Slovak Republic Sweden Brazil New Zealand Australia Chinese Taipei Albania Mean index difference Teacher shortage is more of concern in disadvantaged schools also in public schools, in most countries Fig IV.3.5 Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools Difference between public and private advantaged schools 1.5 Disadvantaged and public schools reported more teacher shortage 1 0.5 0 Advantaged and private schools r eported more teacher shortage -1
    77. 77. 121 Adequacy of educational resources Fig IV.3.8 Percentage of students in schools whose principals reported that the following phenomena hindered student learning "not at all" or "very little“: Singapore OECD average Shortage or inadequacy of science laboratory equipment Shortage or inadequacy of instructional materials (e.g. textbooks) Shortage or inadequacy of computers for instruction Lack or inadequacy of Internet connectivity Shortage or inadequacy of computer software for instruction Shortage or inadequacy of library materials 50 60 70 80 90 % 100 110
    78. 78. Singapore Qatar Australia Chinese Taipei Switzerland United Kingdom Hong Kong-China Japan Slovenia France United States U.A.E. Poland Macao-China Belgium Canada Austria Romania New Zealand Netherlands Hungary Portugal Lithuania Shanghai-China Uruguay Ireland Germany Korea OECD average Sweden Czech Republic Italy Luxembourg Latvia Spain Bulgaria Denmark Estonia Norway Finland Malaysia Iceland Greece Israel Chile Turkey Albania Jordan Russian Fed. Viet Nam Montenegro Croatia Brazil Argentina Slovak Republic Serbia Thailand Kazakhstan Indonesia Mexico Costa Rica Peru Tunisia Colombia Mean index Adequacy of educational resources Mean index Top quarter of this index Fig IV.3.8 Bottom quarter of this index 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 -2.00 -3.00 -4.00
    79. 79. 0.50 -1.50 Peru Costa Rica Mexico Brazil Indonesia Thailand Colombia New Zealand Turkey Argentina United States Uruguay Australia Chile Viet Nam Jordan Shanghai-China U.A.E. Romania Sweden Israel Bulgaria Chinese Taipei Malaysia Ireland Greece Tunisia Poland Canada Japan Macao-China OECD average Luxembourg Qatar Russian Fed. Iceland Belgium France Switzerland Portugal Hong Kong-China Spain Lithuania Denmark Kazakhstan Italy Czech Republic Netherlands Estonia Hungary Slovenia Austria Singapore Latvia Slovak Republic Montenegro Korea Germany Serbia United Kingdom Norway Croatia Finland Liechtenstein Albania Mean index difference Educational resources are more problematic in disadvantaged schools, also in public schools in most countries Fig IV.3.8 Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools Difference between public and private advantaged schools Disadvantaged and public schools reported better educational resources 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 Advantaged and private schools reported better educational resources -2.00
    80. 80. 124 Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14 Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement: Shanghai-China OECD average Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics (i.e. school curriculum with shared instructional materials accompanied by staff development and training) Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school Teacher mentoring Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources) External evaluation Internal evaluation/self-evaluation Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers Written specification of student-performance standards Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals 0 20 40 60 % 80 100 120
    81. 81. 125 Students' views of how conducive classrooms are to learning Fig IV.5.4 Percentage of students who reported that the following phenomena occur "never or hardly ever" or "in some lessons”: Japan OECD average Students don’t listen to what the teacher says There is noise and disorder The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down. Students cannot work well Students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins 0 20 40 60 % 80 100
    82. 82. 120 Shanghai-China Hong Kong-China France Slovak Republic Macao-China Italy Switzerland Qatar Czech Republic Israel Thailand Argentina Denmark Belgium Viet Nam Germany U.A.E. United Kingdom Greece Indonesia Spain Chinese Taipei Singapore Japan Finland Uruguay Poland Sweden Australia New Zealand OECD average Netherlands Malaysia Austria Luxembourg Bulgaria Mexico Jordan Peru Iceland Portugal Brazil Turkey Romania Canada Norway Tunisia Lithuania Chile Serbia Korea United States Russian Fed. Costa Rica Kazakhstan Montenegro Colombia Croatia Slovenia Ireland Latvia Estonia Score point difference 126 Difference in mathematics performance, by attendance at preprimary school before accounting for students' socio-economic status Fig III.4.12 after accounting for students' socio-economic status 140 Students who attended pre-primary school perform better 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20
    83. 83. 127 Also worth noting o Educational resources relate to student performance – 33% of the variation in math performance is explained by differences in principal’s responses to questions about the adequacy of science laboratory equipment, instructional material, ICT and libraries (GDP adjusted) o Adequacy of physical infrastructure unrelated to performance o Within countries, class time relates positively to performance – Holds also after accounting for socio-economic and demographic factors, but does not hold when pooling data across countries (learning outcomes are the product of quantity and quality) – The proportion of students in schools with after-school mathematics lessons is unrelated to system performance – Homework relates positively to school performance
    84. 84. 128 Also worth noting o Most countries and economies with comparable data between 2003 and 2012 have moved towards betterstaffed and better-equipped schools o Students in 2012 were more likely than their counterparts in 2003 to have attended at least one year of pre-primary education – yet many of the students who reported that they had not attended pre-primary school are disadvantaged
    85. 85. 12 9 High performers spend resources where they are needed most
    86. 86. Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably 700 Adjusted by per capita GDP 650 Mathematics performance (score points) Fig IV.1.11 30% of the variation in math performance across OECD countries is 600 explained by the degree of similarity of educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools 550 500 450 Mexico Costa Rica 400 Shanghai-China Chinese Taipei Korea R² = 0.19 Viet Nam Singapore Hong Kong-China Estonia Japan Poland Slovenia Switzerland Latvia Finland Canada Belgium Germany Macao-China Slovak Rep. New Zealand UK IrelandIceland France DenmarkSpain Austria Australia Croatia Hungary Israel Romania Portugal Sweden Bulgaria Turkey USA Greece Norway Italy Serbia Thailand Malaysia Chile Kazakhstan Uruguay Jordan Brazil Indonesia UAE Montenegro Colombia Tunisia Argentina Luxembourg Peru 350 Qatar 300 1.5 1 Less equity 0.5 OECD countries tend to allocate at least an equal, if not a larger, number of teachers per student to disadvantaged schools; but disadvantaged schools tend to have great difficulty in attracting 0 -0.5 qualified teachers. Equity in resource allocation (index points) Greater equity
    87. 87. 13 2 Governance matters Schools with more autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better than schools with less autonomy where they are part of school systems with more accountability arrangements and greater teacher-principal collaboration in school management
    88. 88. Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics 650 Fig IV.1.15 Shanghai-China Mathematics performance (score points) 600 Chinese Taipei Viet Nam 550 500 450 400 Korea Estonia Singapore Hong Kong-China Japan Poland Latvia Slovenia Belgium Czech Rep. Switzerland Canada Germany Finland New Zealand Lithuania Netherlands Portugal Hungary Austria Croatia Italy Spain France Australia Serbia UK Macao-China Turkey Norway Iceland Denmark R² = 0.13 Slovak Rep. Bulgaria Thailand Greece Romania Kazakhstan Israel Malaysia Chile Uruguay USA Sweden Jordan Costa Rica Indonesia Brazil Albania Luxembourg Tunisia Colombia UAE Argentina Peru 350 Qatar 300 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points) 1 1.5
    89. 89. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school management Across all participating countries and economies Score points 485 480 475 470 465 460 Teachers participate in management 455 Teachers don't participate in management Less school autonomy More school autonomy Fig IV.1.17
    90. 90. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies Fig IV.1.16 School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials) Score points 485 480 475 470 465 460 Standardised math policy 455 No standardised math policy Less school autonomy More school autonomy
    91. 91. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements Fig IV.1.16 School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly Score points 478 476 474 472 470 468 466 School data public 464 School data not public Less school autonomy More school autonomy
    92. 92. % 0 Finland Belgium Shanghai-China Japan Austria Switzerland Argentina Macao-China Uruguay Peru Germany Costa Rica Spain Luxembourg Chinese Taipei Tunisia Ireland Jordan Indonesia Albania Croatia Greece Iceland Lithuania Latvia Hong Kong-… Liechtenstein Estonia Malaysia Denmark Italy Brazil Mexico Czech Republic OECD average France U.A.E. Poland Israel Hungary Qatar Singapore Colombia Portugal Slovenia Norway Bulgaria Serbia Canada Chile Turkey Romania Australia Korea Viet Nam Thailand Slovak Republic Russian Fed. Kazakhstan Montenegro New Zealand Sweden United Kingdom Netherlands United States Use of achievement data for accountability Post publicly Fig IV.4.13 Percentage of students in schools that use achievement data in the following ways: Track over time by an administrative authority 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
    93. 93. 90 80 % 0 Finland Uruguay Greece + Switzerland + Ireland + Belgium + Sweden + Japan + Germany + Norway + Italy + Hungary + Slovak Republic Tunisia Denmark + OECD average 2003… Spain Australia + Luxembourg + Liechtenstein + Netherlands + Latvia Korea + New Zealand + Iceland + Brazil + United States Macao-China + Austria + Indonesia Turkey + Czech Republic + Mexico Hong Kong-China + Thailand + Portugal + Russian Federation + Poland Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student assessment data to monitor teachers 2012 Fig IV.4.19 Percentage of students in schools that use assessment data to monitor teachers: 2003 100 + 2012 higher than 2003 - 2012 lower than 2003 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
    94. 94. 14 1 The issue is not how many charter schools a country has… …but how countries enable every school to assume charter type autonomy
    95. 95. % Hong Kong-China Netherlands Chile Ireland Korea U.A.E. United Kingdom Indonesia Australia Qatar Chinese Taipei Argentina Spain Japan Denmark OECD average France Uruguay Jordan Thailand Hungary Luxembourg Peru Colombia Sweden Brazil Costa Rica Portugal Shanghai-China Mexico Slovak Republic Austria Albania Czech Republic Canada Viet Nam Switzerland Germany New Zealand United States Italy Malaysia Finland Poland Kazakhstan Estonia Slovenia What type of school do most students attend? Fig IV.1.22 Fig IV.1.22 Percentage of students attending Government-independent private schools Government-dependent private schools Government or public schools 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
    96. 96. 100 -50 Chinese Taipei Hong Kong-China Thailand Viet Nam Luxembourg Switzerland Indonesia Italy Kazakhstan Japan Czech Republic Netherlands Estonia Albania Ireland United States Hungary Sweden Korea United Kingdom Finland Denmark OECD average France Shanghai-China Australia Spain Slovak Republic Mexico Germany Austria Colombia Chile Canada Poland Jordan Argentina United Arab Emirates Portugal Peru Costa Rica Brazil New Zealand Malaysia Slovenia Uruguay Qatar Score-point difference Differences in mathematics performance between private and public schools shrink considerably after accounting for socio-economic status 50 Fig IV.1.19 Observed performance difference After accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic status 75 Performance advantage of public schools 25 0 -25 Performance advantage of private schools -75 -100 -125
    97. 97. 14 5 How the theory of school choice squares with the reality in families If offered a choice of schools for their child, parents consider criteria as “a safe school environment” and “a school’s good reputation” more important than “high academic achievement of students in the school”.
    98. 98. School competition and mathematics performance Fig IV.1.18 Adjusted by per capita GDP 650 Shanghai-China There is no relationship between the prevalence of competition and overall performance level Mathematics performance (score points) 600 Korea Viet Nam 550 Poland Switzerland Finland 500 Lithuania France Iceland 450 Montenegro 400 R² = 0.030 Japan Netherlands Czech Rep. Slovak Rep. Hong Kong-China Singapore Latvia Belgium New Zealand Spain Serbia Macao-China Ireland Hungary Romania Austria UK Bulgaria Sweden USA Australia Turkey Thailand Greece Chile Uruguay Kazakhstan Malaysia Jordan Costa Rica Mexico Argentina Albania Brazil Tunisia Indonesia UAE Luxembourg Colombia Peru Italy Norway Estonia Germany Slovenia Portugal Chinese Taipei 350 Qatar 300 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage of students in schools that compete with at least one other school 90 100
    99. 99. A school’s particular approach to teaching is not a determining factor when parents choose a school for their child Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that a particular approach to pedagogy is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Hungary Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Germany Italy Portugal Hong Kong-China Korea Chile Macao-China Mexico 0
    100. 100. Expenses associated with schooling are a concern among disadvantaged families Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that expenses such as tuition, books, and room and board, are very important criteria when choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Germany Hong Kong-China Italy Hungary Macao-China Korea Croatia Portugal Mexico Chile 0
    101. 101. Financial aid for school is a greater concern among disadvantaged parents Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that the availability of financial aid, such as a school loan, scholarship or grant, is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Germany Hungary Hong Kong-China Croatia Macao-China Korea Portugal Mexico Chile 0
    102. 102. For disadvantaged families, physical access to school is a significant concern Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that the school’s distance from home is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Italy Hong Kong-China Macao-China Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Croatia Hungary Germany Korea Chile Mexico Portugal 0
    103. 103. Advantaged families tend to seek out schools whose students are high achievers Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that students’ high academic achievement is a very important criterion in choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Hungary Italy Germany Hong Kong-China Croatia Macao-China Mexico Portugal Chile Korea 0
    104. 104. A school’s reputation is a very important consideration among advantaged families Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that a school’s good reputation is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Croatia Hungary Macao-China Italy Korea Germany Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Hong Kong-China Mexico Chile 0 Portugal %
    105. 105. Advantaged parents tend to seek out schools with an active and pleasant climate Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that an active and pleasant climate is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Hungary Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Croatia Italy Macao-China Hong Kong-China Mexico Germany Portugal Korea Chile 0
    106. 106. Parents everywhere look for a safe school environment for their child Fig IV.4.5 Percentage of parents who reported that a safe school environment is a very important criterion in choosing a school for their child All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Belgium (Fl. Comm.) Hungary Germany Italy Croatia Mexico Macao-China Hong Kong-China Chile Korea Portugal 0
    107. 107. 15 9 PISA 2012 Sample Question 4 Revolving Door Correct Answer: in the range from 103 to 105. Accept answers calculated as 1/6th of the circumference (100π/3). Also accept an answer of 100 only if it is clear that this response resulted from using π =3. Note: Answer of 100 without supporting working could be obtained by a simple guess that it is the same as the radius (length of a single wing). This item belongs to the space and shape category. Space and shape encompasses a wide range of phenomena that are encountered everywhere in our visual and physical world: patterns, properties of objects, positions and orientations, representations of objects, decoding and encoding of visual information, navigation and dynamic interaction with real shapes as well as with representations. SCORING: Description: Interpret a geometrical model of a real life situation to calculate the length of an arc Mathematical content area: Space and shape Context: Scientific Process: Formulate
    108. 108. 15 10 5 0 Hong Kong-China Korea Japan Macao-China Liechtenstein Switzerland Belgium Poland Germany New Zealand Netherlands Canada Australia Estonia Finland Vietnam Slovenia OECD average Austria Czech Republic France Slovak Republic United Kingdom Luxembourg Iceland United States Israel Ireland Italy Hungary Portugal Norway Denmark Croatia Sweden Latvia Russian Federation Lithuania Spain Turkey Serbia Bulgaria Greece Romania United Arab Emirates Thailand 25 Shanghai-China 30 Singapore Chinese Taipei 16 0 PISA 2012 Sample Question 4 Percent of 15-year-olds who scored Level 6 or Above 20
    109. 109. Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org • All national and international publications • The complete micro-level database Thank you ! Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherEDU and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
    110. 110. Do you have an idea on how to use this data to improve education in your country? Would you like to work with us to develop that idea? Apply to the Thomas J. Alexander fellowship programme! http://www.oecd.org/edu/thomasjalexanderfellowship.htm
    111. 111. Backup slides
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×