Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

PISA: Where is real progress being made in provinding equitable education?

161 views

Published on

Autor: Speaker: Andreas Schleicher, Director, Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD.
Presentation made for the first IIEP Strategic Debate of 2017.

More information: http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/strategic-debate-real-progress-being-made-equitable-provision-education-pisaresults-3879

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

PISA: Where is real progress being made in provinding equitable education?

  1. 1. Where is real progress being made in providing equitable education? IIEP Strategic Debates Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills
  2. 2. PISA in brief - 2015 In 2015, over half a million students… - representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies … took an internationally agreed 2-hour test… - Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations - Total of 390 minutes of assessment material … and responded to questions on… - their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on: - school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences - 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
  3. 3. PISA 2015 OECD Partners
  4. 4. Trends in science performance (PISA) 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 OECD average Studentperformance
  5. 5. Trends in science performance (PISA) 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD average
  6. 6. Singapore Japan EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland Macao (China) CanadaViet Nam Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia Australia United KingdomGermany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland IsraelMalta Slovak Rep. Greece Chile Bulgaria United Arab EmiratesUruguay Romania Moldova Turkey Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico MontenegroJordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia FYROM Kosovo Algeria Dominican Rep. (332) 350 400 450 500 550 Meanscienceperformance Higherperfomance Science performance and equity in PISA (2015) Some countries combine excellence with equity High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity More equity
  7. 7. Brazil Bulgaria Chile Mexico Montenegro Slovenia Thailand United States 350 400 450 500 550 0510152025 Meanscienceperformance Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS More equity Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015) Some countries improved equity Higherperfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity
  8. 8. -2 -1 0 1 2 300 400 500 600 700 ESCS PISAsciencescale USA 2006 USA 2015 No difference Significant difference Greater equity
  9. 9. Poverty is not destiny - Science performance by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) 280 330 380 430 480 530 580 630 DominicanRepublic40 Algeria52 Kosovo10 Qatar3 FYROM13 Tunisia39 Montenegro11 Jordan21 UnitedArabEmirates3 Georgia19 Lebanon27 Indonesia74 Mexico53 Peru50 CostaRica38 Brazil43 Turkey59 Moldova28 Thailand55 Colombia43 Iceland1 TrinidadandTobago14 Romania20 Israel6 Bulgaria13 Greece13 Russia5 Uruguay39 Chile27 Latvia25 Lithuania12 SlovakRepublic8 Italy15 Norway1 Spain31 Hungary16 Croatia10 Denmark3 OECDaverage12 Sweden3 Malta13 UnitedStates11 Macao(China)22 Ireland5 Austria5 Portugal28 Luxembourg14 HongKong(China)26 CzechRepublic9 Poland16 Australia4 UnitedKingdom5 Canada2 France9 Korea6 NewZealand5 Switzerland8 Netherlands4 Slovenia5 Belgium7 Finland2 Estonia5 VietNam76 Germany7 Japan8 ChineseTaipei12 B-S-J-G(China)52 Singapore11 Scorepoints Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile Figure I.6.7 % of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS OECD median student
  10. 10. Students expecting a career in science Figure I.3.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 DominicanRep.12 CostaRica11 Jordan6 UnitedArabEm.11 Mexico6 Colombia8 Lebanon15 Brazil19 Peru7 Qatar19 UnitedStates13 Chile18 Tunisia19 Canada21 Slovenia16 Turkey6 Australia15 UnitedKingdom17 Malaysia4 Kazakhstan14 Spain11 Norway21 Uruguay17 Singapore14 TrinidadandT.13 Israel25 CABA(Arg.)19 Portugal18 Bulgaria25 Ireland13 Kosovo7 Algeria12 Malta11 Greece12 NewZealand24 Albania29 Estonia15 OECDaverage19 Belgium16 Croatia17 FYROM20 Lithuania21 Iceland22 Russia19 HKG(China)20 Romania20 Italy17 Austria23 Moldova7 Latvia19 Montenegro18 France21 Luxembourg18 Poland13 Macao(China)10 ChineseTaipei21 Sweden21 Thailand27 VietNam13 Switzerland22 Korea7 Hungary22 SlovakRepublic24 Japan18 Finland24 Georgia27 CzechRepublic22 B-S-J-G(China)31 Netherlands19 Germany33 Indonesia19 Denmark48 % Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30 Science-related technicians and associate professionals Information and communication technology professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals %ofstudentswithvag ueormissingexpectati ons
  11. 11. 0 10 20 30 40 50 300 400 500 600 700 Percentageofstudentsexpectinga careerinscience Score points in science Low enjoyment of science High enjoyment of science Students expecting a career in science by performance and enjoyment of learning Figure I.3.17  
  12. 12. Singapore Canada Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Ireland Portugal Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Denmark Japan Estonia Finland Macao (China) Viet Nam B-S-J-G (China) Korea Germany Netherlands Switzerland Belgium Poland Sweden Lithuania Croatia Iceland Georgia Malta United States Spain Israel United Arab Emirates Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Jordan Kosovo Lebanon Mexico Peru Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uruguay Above-average science performance Stronger than average beliefs in science Above-average percentage of students expecting to work in a science-related occupation Norway Multipleoutcomes
  13. 13. LessonsfromPISA Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins
  14. 14. LessonsfromPISA Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning systemCoherence
  15. 15. Inequity in opportunity Resources
  16. 16. Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance Figure II.6.2 Luxembourg Switzerland NorwayAustria Singapore United States United Kingdom Malta Sweden Belgium Iceland Denmark Finland Netherlands Canada Japan Slovenia Australia Germany Ireland FranceItaly Portugal New Zealand Korea Spain Poland Israel Estonia Czech Rep. LatviaSlovak Rep. Russia Croatia Lithuania Hungary Costa Rica Chinese Taipei Chile Brazil Turkey Uruguay Bulgaria Mexico Thailand Montenegro Colombia Dominican Republic Peru Georgia 11.7, 411 R² = 0.01 R² = 0.41 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Scienceperformance(scorepoints) Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
  17. 17. Differences in educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Figure I.6.14 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 1 1 CABA(Argentina) Mexico Peru Macao(China) UnitedArabEmirates Lebanon Jordan Colombia Brazil Indonesia Turkey Spain DominicanRepublic Georgia Uruguay Thailand B-S-J-G(China) Australia Japan Chile Luxembourg Russia Portugal Malta Italy NewZealand Croatia Ireland Algeria Norway Israel Denmark Sweden UnitedStates Moldova Belgium Slovenia OECDaverage Hungary ChineseTaipei VietNam CzechRepublic Singapore Tunisia Greece TrinidadandTobago Canada Romania Qatar Montenegro Kosovo Netherlands Korea Finland Switzerland Germany HongKong(China) Austria FYROM Poland Albania Bulgaria SlovakRepublic Lithuania Estonia Iceland CostaRica UnitedKingdom Latvia Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantaged anddisadvantagedschools Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools
  18. 18. Croatia16 Belgium14 Austria9 France4 ChineseTaipei8 Germany5 SlovakRepublic11 Malta6 Switzerland8 Luxembourg7 Australia10 Kosovo9 Greece5 Uruguay5 Montenegro6 Korea3 Canada14 NewZealand6 Ireland8 Thailand7 Italy3 FYROM25 Japan3 Turkey7 Qatar5 CABA(Argentina)3 HongKong(China)24 UnitedStates6 Brazil8 OECDaverage6 CostaRica3 Slovenia1 Colombia6 TrinidadandTobago8 Singapore1 Chile1 Georgia1 UnitedKingdom2 Romania2 UnitedArabEmirates7 Finland4 CzechRepublic<1 Spain16 Jordan2 Albania2 DominicanRepublic3 Bulgaria<1 Tunisia3 Israel7 Norway<1 Denmark1 Poland<1 Estonia<1 Lebanon1 Peru1 Russia<1 Moldova6 Algeria2 Latvia1 Sweden1 Netherlands16 Hungary14 Mexico4 B-S-J-G(China)6 Macao(China)19 Indonesia4 Iceland3 Portugal30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Percentage-pointdifference Percentage-point difference between students in socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools who are required to attend at least one science course per week Differences in the requirement to attend regular science lessons, by schools' socio-economic profile Figure II.2.5 Students in socio-economically advantaged schools are more likely to be required to attend at least one science course per week Students in socio-economically disadvantaged schools are more likely to be required to attend at least one science course per week Percentage of students who are not required to attend any science course
  19. 19. 0 5 10 15 20 25 The material for hands-on activities in science is in good shape Compared to other departments, our school‘s science department is well-equipped Compared to similar schools, we have a well- equipped laboratory We have extra laboratory staff that helps support science teaching We have enough laboratory material that all courses can regularly use it If we ever have some extra funding, a big share goes into improvement of our science teaching Our school spends extra money on up-to- date science equipment Science teachers are among our best-educated staff members Score-pointdifference After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Science-specific resources at school and science performance Figure II.2.7
  20. 20. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Switzerland Japan Iceland Jordan Norway Austria Netherlands Algeria Uruguay Romania Lebanon Denmark Brazil VietNam Germany Greece Turkey Italy Chile France Tunisia Luxembourg Israel CABA(Argentina) Belgium OECDaverage Thailand Kosovo Mexico ChineseTaipei Sweden Peru Ireland FYROM Colombia UnitedStates NewZealand Canada TrinidadandTobago Spain Bulgaria Korea Malta UnitedKingdom Croatia Slovenia SlovakRepublic Georgia Indonesia CzechRepublic HongKong(China) Qatar Latvia Singapore DominicanRepublic Finland Lithuania UnitedArabEmirates Hungary Portugal Australia Montenegro B-S-J-G(China) Poland Albania CostaRica Estonia Russia Moldova Macao(China) Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools Science competitions offered at school, by schools' socio-economic profile Figure II.2.10 %
  21. 21. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Sweden Estonia Russia Latvia Bulgaria Iceland Norway Hungary Denmark Finland Singapore Israel Belgium HongKong(China) Spain SlovakRepublic Uruguay France Macao(China) Brazil B-S-J-G(China) Japan Germany CzechRepublic Lithuania Slovenia Thailand Austria Croatia Italy ChineseTaipei OECDaverage Poland Peru Korea Mexico Luxembourg Greece Montenegro DominicanRepublic NewZealand UnitedKingdom UnitedStates Switzerland CostaRica Qatar UnitedArab… Colombia Australia Canada Chile Ireland Tunisia Portugal Turkey %students Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically … Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio- economic profile Table II.6.51 OECD average
  22. 22. Inequity in opportunity Behaviour
  23. 23. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Japan Korea B-S-J-G(China) ChineseTaipei HongKong(China) Iceland Netherlands Macao(China) Belgium CzechRepublic Hungary Germany Sweden Chile Switzerland France Austria Luxembourg Croatia Slovenia Norway Singapore Denmark Canada Greece OECDaverage Poland Portugal UnitedArabEmirates Lithuania Estonia Russia Ireland Spain Latvia NewZealand UnitedKingdom Mexico Australia Tunisia Thailand Israel Finland UnitedStates CostaRica Peru Qatar Colombia Bulgaria Turkey Brazil SlovakRepublic DominicanRepublic Uruguay Italy Montenegro Percentage-pointdifference % Percentage of students who had skipped a whole day of school at least once in the two weeks prior to the PISA test Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Students skipping a whole day of school, by schools’ socio-economic profile Figure II.3.3 Students in advantaged schools skipped a whole day of school more often Students in disadvantaged schools skipped a whole day of school more often
  24. 24. -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Staff resisting change Teachers being too strict with students Teachers not meeting individual students’ needs Teacher absenteeism Teachers not being well prepared for classes Student use of alcohol or illegal drugs Students intimidating or bullying other students Students skipping classes Student truancy Students lacking respect for teachers Score-pointdifference After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning and science performance Figure II.3.10
  25. 25. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Compared to other departments, the school‘s science department is well-equipped Science teachers are among our best-educated staff members School offers a science club School offers science competitions Learning time in regular science lessons, in hours Time per week studying science after school, in hours Teacher-directed instruction Perceived feedback adaptive instruction Enquiry-based instruction Teacher support z-scores After accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schools Before accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schools Explaining students' expectations of a career in science Figure II.2.22 Science-specific resources Science activities Learning time Teaching strategies in science lessons Confidence No association
  26. 26. Inequity in opportunity Policy and practice
  27. 27. Firstageatselectioninthe educationsystem Recommendationoffeeder schoolsalwaysconsideredfor schooladmissions Student’srecordofacademic performancealwaysconsidered forschooladmission Percentageofstudentsin vocationalorpre-vocational programmes Meanscoreinscience Numberofschooltypesor educationalprogrammes Abilitygroupingbetweenclasses forallsubjects Variationinscienceperformance Graderepetition(atleastonce) -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Standardisedregressioncoefficients Factors associated with equity in science performance Figure II.5.13 More equity in science performance Less equity in science performance
  28. 28. First age at selection in the education system and index of teacher support in science lessons Figure II.3.11 10 Austria Belgium 8 4 Czech Republic Denmark Estonia 12 France Germany Greece Hungary 5 Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Latvia Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands 9 Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey 11 3 Albania Brazil B-S-J-G (China) Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Dominican Rep. FYROM Georgia Hong Kong Indonesia 1 Lithuania Macao (China) 7 Montenegro 2 6 Romania Russia Singapore Chinese Taipei Thailand United Arab Emirates Uruguay Viet Nam R² = 0.36 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Indexofteachersupportinsciencelessons First age at selection in the education system 1. Jordan 2. Peru 3. United States 4. Chile 5. Iceland 6. Qatar 7. Malta 8. Canada 9. New Zealand 10. Australia 11. United Kingdom 12. Finland In education systems with early tracking students are less likely to report that their science teachers support students in their learning
  29. 29. Low expenses as a reason for choosing school, by schools’ socio-economic status Figure II.4.17 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Scotland(UK) DominicanRepublic Mexico HongKong(China) Macao(China) Italy Korea OECDaverage Germany Belgium(Flemmish) France Georgia Ireland Portugal Chile Croatia Luxembourg Spain Malta % Percentage-pointdifference Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Percentage of parents who consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important" Low expenses are more important for parents whose children attend advantaged schools Low expenses are more important for parents whose children attend disadvantaged schools
  30. 30. -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Luxembourg Belgium(Flemmish) Portugal HongKong(China) Malta Italy Germany Ireland OECDaverage Georgia Macao(China) Croatia Chile Spain Mexico Korea Scotland(UK) France DominicanRepublic Score-pointdifference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status Schools’ low expenses as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance Figure II.4.17 Students whose parents consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important” perform lower Students whose parents consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important” perform higher
  31. 31. School reputation as a reason for choosing school, by schools’ socio-economic status Figure II.4.18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Macao(China) Korea Italy Croatia HongKong(China) Mexico Belgium(Flemmish) Portugal France OECDaverage Scotland(UK) Chile Ireland Malta Luxembourg Spain DominicanRepublic Georgia Germany % Percentage-pointdifference Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Percentage of parents who consider school reputation "important" or "very important" School reputation is more important for parents whose children attend advantaged schools School reputation is more important for parents whose children attend disadvantaged schools
  32. 32. -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 HongKong(China) Georgia Korea Macao(China) Mexico DominicanRepublic Chile Portugal Malta Italy Croatia Spain OECDaverage Germany Luxembourg Ireland France Belgium(Flemmish) Scotland(UK) Score-pointdifference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status School reputation as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance Figure II.4.18 Students whose parents consider school reputation "important" or "very important“ perform higher Students whose parents consider school reputation "important" or "very important“ perform lower
  33. 33. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Colombia Brazil Uruguay Tunisia Belgium Macao(China) TrinidadandTobago CostaRica Spain Portugal Luxembourg Peru Chile France Netherlands Switzerland Germany Qatar HongKong(China) Indonesia Mexico Austria Italy UnitedArabEmirates OECDaverage UnitedStates Turkey Hungary Israel Jordan Ireland Australia Malta SlovakRepublic Thailand Romania Canada Singapore Poland Latvia Greece NewZealand Bulgaria CzechRepublic Sweden Estonia Denmark Moldova Finland UnitedKingdom Albania Lithuania Slovenia Montenegro Croatia Russia Georgia Iceland ChineseTaipei % students PISA 2015 PISA 2009 Change between 2009 and 2015 in grade repetition rates Figure II.5.5
  34. 34. SlovakRepublic CzechRepublic Russia Uruguay Spain Poland Bulgaria Portugal Slovenia Canada Belgium Estonia Tunisia Hungary France Israel Macao(China) CostaRica Lithuania Italy B-S-J-G(China) UnitedStates Iceland UnitedArabEmirates OECDaverage DominicanRepublic Latvia Luxembourg Greece Ireland Mexico Switzerland HongKong(China) Montenegro Denmark ChineseTaipei Peru UnitedKingdom Qatar Sweden Netherlands Germany Australia Brazil Turkey Croatia Finland Chile Austria Thailand Korea Singapore NewZealand Colombia 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Increasedlikelihoodofhavingrepeatedagrade(oddsratio) Students' socio-economic profile and grade repetition Figure II.5.7 Students with a higher socio-economic status are more likely to have repeated a grade Students with a higher socio-economic status are less likely to have repeated a grade
  35. 35. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Croatia Austria Slovenia Italy Montenegro FYROM Bulgaria Belgium Netherlands ChineseTaipei Japan Hungary Greece Korea France Kosovo Turkey CzechRepublic OECDaverage Australia Portugal CABA(Argentina) Luxembourg Thailand SlovakRepublic Colombia Mexico Russia Switzerland Indonesia Albania CostaRica Germany Lithuania Georgia Macao(China) Ireland Uruguay Algeria Spain Chile Latvia B-S-J-G(China) UnitedKingdom Brazil Estonia UnitedArabEmirates Poland DominicanRepublic Sweden Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools Enrolment in pre-vocational or vocational programmes, by schools’ socio-economic profile Figure II.5.9 %
  36. 36. Student-teacher ratios and class size Figure II.6.14 CABA (Argentina) Jordan Viet Nam Poland United States Chile Denmark Hungary B-S-G-J (China) Turkey Georgia Chinese Taipei Mexico Russia Albania Hong Kong (China) Japan Belgium Algeria Colombia Peru Macao (China) Switzerland Malta Dominican Republic Netherlands Singapore Brazil Kosovo Finland Thailand R² = 0.25 5 10 15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Student-teacherratio Class size in language of instruction High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes OECD average OECDaverage
  37. 37. Inequity in opportunity Governance
  38. 38. -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 Turkey Singapore VietNam Japan Tunisia Italy ChineseTaipei Thailand Greece Switzerland CzechRepublic UnitedStates Estonia Uruguay France Austria CABA(Argentina) Kosovo Mexico HongKong(China) Indonesia Luxembourg Sweden Hungary Malta DominicanRepublic Latvia OECDaverage B-S-J-G(China) Portugal Slovenia Spain UnitedKingdom SlovakRepublic Norway Australia Croatia Denmark Peru Jordan CostaRica Colombia Chile Netherlands Korea NewZealand Canada Lithuania Ireland Georgia TrinidadandTobago FYROM Germany Finland Lebanon Belgium Poland Brazil UnitedArabEmirates Qatar Score-pointdifference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status Science performance in public and private schools Figure II.4.14 Students in private schools perform better Students in public schools perform better
  39. 39. -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 UnitedArabEmirates CABA(Argentina) Malta Lebanon Uruguay DominicanRepublic Jordan Mexico Qatar Spain Brazil Peru Colombia Chile Singapore Australia B-S-J-G(China) Japan VietNam Greece Israel Georgia TrinidadandTobago Russia HongKong(China) Ireland Kosovo Denmark FYROM Montenegro France Portugal Austria Switzerland Sweden OECDaverage UnitedStates Hungary Belgium Netherlands Macao(China) Korea Finland Slovenia Moldova Latvia Thailand SlovakRepublic Algeria Italy UnitedKingdom Germany Tunisia Canada Luxembourg Turkey Iceland Indonesia Lithuania CzechRepublic Estonia NewZealand Romania Bulgaria Croatia ChineseTaipei Poland Norway CostaRica Percentage-pointdifference %Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Index of school autonomy (%) Index of school autonomy, by schools’ socio- economic status Figure II.4.7 Advantaged schools have more school autonomy Disadvantaged schools have more school autonomy
  40. 40. Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance and science performance Figure II.4.8 Lower science performance Higher science performance Students score lower in science when the school governing board holds more responsibility for admissions policies School principal Teachers School governing board Local or regional education authority National education authority
  41. 41. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa – All publications – The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherOECD Wechat: AndreasSchleicher Thank you

×