Upcoming SlideShare
×

# PISA 2012 Evaluating systems to improve education

705 views

Published on

The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards alone but the best performing education systems

Published in: Education
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
705
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
16
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

### PISA 2012 Evaluating systems to improve education

1. 1. OECD EMPLOYER BRAND Playbook 1 PISA 2012 Evaluating systems to improve education The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards alone but the best performing education systems Bett 2014, School Leaders Summit 23 January 2014 Michael Davidson Head of Early Childhood and Schools Division, OECD Directorate for Education and Skills
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 c reatively 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 Helen the Cyclist Helen has just got a new bike. It has a speedometer which sits on the handlebar. The speedometer can tell Helen the distance she travels and her average speed for a trip. Helen rode 6 km to her aunt’s house. Her speedometer showed that she had averaged 18 km/h for the whole trip. Which one of the following statements is correct? A. It took Helen 20 minutes to get to her aunt’s house. B. It took Helen 30 minutes to get to her aunt’s house. C. It took Helen 3 hours to get to her aunt’s house. D. It is not possible to tell how long it took Helen to get to her aunt’s house. PISA 2012 Sample Question 2
4. 4. 4 Correct Answer: A. It took Helen 20 minutes to get to her aunt’s house. This item belongs to the change and relationships category. This involves understanding fundamental types of change and recognising when they occur in order to use suitable mathematical models to describe and predict change. SCORING: Description: Calculate time travelled given average speed and distance travelled Mathematical content area: Change and relationships Context: Personal Process: Employ Helen the Cyclist PISA 2012 Sample Question 2
5. 5. 5 Percent of 15-year-olds who scored Level 3 or Above Shanghai-China Singapore HongKong-China Korea ChineseTaipei Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Estonia Netherlands Finland Canada Poland Vietnam Germany Belgium Austria Ireland Denmark Australia CzechRepublic Slovenia NewZealand France UnitedKingdom Iceland OECDaverage Latvia Norway Luxembourg Portugal Spain Italy RussianFederation SlovakRepublic Sweden Lithuania UnitedStates Hungary Israel Croatia Greece Serbia Turkey Bulgaria Romania UnitedArabEmirates Kazakhstan Chile Thailand Malaysia Uruguay Montenegro Mexico Albania Qatar CostaRica Brazil Argentina Tunisia Jordan Peru Colombia Indonesia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PISA 2012 Sample Question 2
6. 6. What do 15-year-olds know… …and what can they do with what they know? Mathematics (2012) 6 Each year OECD countries spend 200bn\$ on maths education in school
7. 7. Singapore Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei Korea Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam Austria Australia IrelandSlovenia DenmarkNew Zealand Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland LatviaLuxembourg Norway Portugal ItalySpain Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United States LithuaniaSwedenHungary Croatia Israel Greece SerbiaTurkey Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Chile Malaysia Mexico 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 Mean score High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance … Shanghai-China performs above this line (613) … 12 countries perform below this line Average performance of 15-year-olds in Mathematics Fig I.2.13
8. 8. Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance Average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Singapore Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei Korea Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam Austria Australia IrelandSlovenia DenmarkNew Zealand Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland LatviaLuxembourg Norway Portugal ItalySpain Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United States LithuaniaSwedenHungary Croatia Israel Greece SerbiaTurkey Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Chile Malaysia Mexico
9. 9. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Singapore Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei Macao-China Liechtenstein Viet Nam Latvia Russian Fed. Lithuania Croatia Serbia Romania Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia 02468101214161820222426 2012 Shanghai-China Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Strong socio-economic impact on student performance
10. 10. 200 494 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 School performance and socio-economic background: United Kingdom10 AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic backgroundDisadvantage Student performance and students’ socio-economic background School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools Studentperformance 700 Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area
11. 11. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Shanghai-China HongKong-… Macao-China Singapore Korea ChineseTaipei Japan Netherlands Poland Portugal Germany Italy Spain UnitedKingdom France Norway Iceland NewZealand RussianFed. UnitedStates Denmark Sweden Hungary SlovakRepublic Mexico Greece Israel Indonesia Brazil Chile Argentina % Percentage of resilient students More than 10 % resilient Between 5%-10% of resilient students Less than 5% Fig II.2.4 11
12. 12. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Singapore Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei Macao-China Liechtenstein Viet Nam Latvia Russian Fed. Lithuania Croatia Serbia Romania Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia 02468101214161820222426 2012 Shanghai-China Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Strong socio-economic impact on student performance
13. 13. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Singapore 2003 - 2012
14. 14. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Singapore 2003 - 2012 Brazil, Italy, Macao- China, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Thailand and Tunisia saw significant improvements in math performance between 2003 and 2012 (adding countries with more recent trends results in 25 countries with improvements in math)
15. 15. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Singapore 2003 - 2012 Norway, the United States and Switzerland improved equity between 2003 and 2012
16. 16. Of the 65 countries… …40 improved at least in one subject 16
17. 17. 17 Change in performance between PISA 2003 and 2012 Indonesia Thailand Russian Fed. United States Latvia Spain Norway Luxembourg Ireland Austria Switzerland Japan Liechtenstein Korea Brazil Tunisia Mexico Uruguay Turkey Greece Italy Portugal Hungary Poland Slovak Republic OECD average Germany Sweden France Denmark Iceland Czech Republic New Zealand Australia Macao-China Belgium Canada Netherlands Finland Hong Kong-China -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 350 400 450 500 550 600 Averageannualmathematicsscorechange Average mathematics performance in PISA 2003 ImprovingperformanceDeterioratingperformance PISA 2003 performance below the OECD average PISA 2003 performance above the OECD average Fig I.2.18
18. 18. But underachievement persists … 18
19. 19. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Shanghai-China Singapore HongKong-China Korea Estonia Macao-China Japan Finland Switzerland ChineseTaipei Canada Poland Netherlands Denmark Ireland Germany Austria Belgium Australia Latvia Slovenia CzechRepublic Iceland UnitedKingdom Norway France NewZealand OECDaverage Spain RussianFederation Luxembourg Italy Portugal UnitedStates Sweden SlovakRepublic Hungary Israel Greece Turkey Chile Mexico Argentina Brazil Indonesia % Percentage of low-performing students in mathematics Tab I.2.1a 19 Across OECD, 23% of students are low performers (Below Level 2). They can extract relevant information from a single source and can use basic algorithms, formulae, procedures or conventions to solve problems involving whole numbers.
20. 20. Gender differences remain 20
21. 21. Gender differences in mathematics performance Fig I.2.25 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Jordan Qatar Thailand Malaysia Iceland U.A.E. Latvia Singapore Finland Sweden Bulgaria RussianFed. Albania Montenegro Lithuania Kazakhstan Norway Macao-China Slovenia Romania Poland Indonesia UnitedStates Estonia ChineseTaipei Shanghai-China Belgium Turkey Greece France Hungary Serbia SlovakRepublic Vietnam Canada Netherlands OECDaverage Portugal Uruguay Croatia Israel CzechRepublic Australia UnitedKingdom Switzerland Germany Argentina Denmark Mexico NewZealand Tunisia Ireland HongKong-China Spain Brazil Japan Korea Italy Peru Austria Liechtenstein CostaRica Chile Luxembourg Colombia Score-pointdifference(boys-girls) Boys perform better than girls Girls perform better than boys 21
22. 22. Gender differences in reading performance -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 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 RussianFed. Hungary SlovakRepublic Portugal Italy CzechRepublic Argentina OECDaverage Austria Kazakhstan Switzerland Macao-China Uruguay Canada Australia NewZealand ChineseTaipei Singapore Belgium VietNam UnitedStates Denmark Tunisia Brazil Luxembourg Spain Ireland Indonesia Netherlands HongKong-China CostaRica UnitedKingdom Liechtenstein Japan Shanghai-China Mexico Korea Chile Peru Colombia Albania Score-pointdifference(boys-girls) In all countries and economies girls perform better than boys Fig I.4.12 22
23. 23. The share of immigrant students in OECD countries increased from 9% in 2003 to 12% in 2012… …while the performance disadvantage of immigrant students reduced by 11 score points during the same period (after accounting for socio-economic factors) 23
24. 24. -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Australia Israel UnitedStates Hungary ongKong-China Singapore SlovakRepublic Canada NewZealand ChineseTaipei Ireland Turkey UnitedKingdom Luxembourg Latvia Chile Argentina RussianFed. CzechRepublic OECDaverage Germany Greece Norway Estonia Iceland Italy Austria Netherlands Spain France Portugal Sweden Denmark Switzerland Belgium Brazil Finland Mexico Shanghai-China Scorepointdifference before accounting for students' socio-economic status after accounting for students' socio-economic status Differences in mathematics performance between students without and with an immigrant background Students without an immigrant background perform better Students with an immigrant background perform better Fig II.3.4 24
25. 25. 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 25
26. 26. Hong Kong-China Brazil Uruguay Albania Latvia Lithuania Chinese Taipei Thailand Bulgaria Jordan UAE Argentina Indonesia Kazakhstan Peru Costa Rica Montenegro Tunisia Qatar Singapore Colombia Malaysia Russian Fed. Romania Viet Nam Shanghai-China USA Poland New Zealand Greece UK Estonia Finland Luxembourg Germany Austria Czech Rep. France Japan TurkeySweden Hungary Australia Canada Chile Belgium Netherlands Spain Switzerland Slovenia Portugal Norway Mexico Korea Italy R² = 0.16 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mathematicsperformance(scorepoints) Percentage of students in schools who skipped at least one day of school in the two weeks prior to the PISA test Countries with large proportions of truants perform worse in mathematics Fig IV.1.22
27. 27. Social and emotional dimensions matter too Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs are all related to their performance 28
28. 28. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Agree: I feel like I belong at school Disagree: I feel lonely at school Agree: I feel happy at school Agree: Things are ideal in my school Agree: I am satisfied with my school % Korea OECD average United Kingdom Students' sense of belonging Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements: Fig III.2.12 29
29. 29. Students’ mathematics self-efficacy Percentage of students who feel very confident or confident about having to do the foll owing tasks in mathematics: 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Using a <train timetable> to work out how long it would take to get from one place… Calculating how much cheaper a TV would be after a 30% discount Calculating how many square metres of tiles you need to cover a floor Understanding graphs presented in newspapers Solving an equation like 3x+5=17 Finding the actual distance between two places on a map with a 1:10 000 scale Solving an equation like 2(x+3)=(x+3)(x-3) Calculating the petrol-consumption rate of a car % Korea OECD average United Kingdom Fig III.4.2 30
30. 30. Money makes a difference… …but only up to a point 31
31. 31. Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and mathematics performance in PISA 2012 Slovak Republic Czech Republic Estonia Israel Poland Korea Portugal New Zealand Canada Germany Spain France Italy Singapore Finland Japan SloveniaIreland Iceland Netherlands Sweden Belgium UK Australia Denmark United States Austria Norway Switzerland Luxembourg Viet Nam Jordan Peru Thailand Malaysia Uruguay Turkey Colombia Tunisia Mexico Montenegro Brazil Bulgaria Chile Croatia Lithuania Latvia Hungary Shanghai-China R² = 0.01 R² = 0.37 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000 Mathematicsperformance(scorepoints) Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs) Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000 Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more Fig IV.1.8
32. 32. 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 33
33. 33. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration Teachers don't participate in management Teachers participate in management455 460 465 470 475 480 485 Less school autonomy More school autonomy Score points School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school management Across all participating countries and economies Fig IV.1.17
34. 34. Lessons from PISA on successful education systems
35. 35. Thank you ! Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org • All national and international publications • The complete micro-level database Email: Michael.Davidson@OECD.org
36. 36. 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