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.

Academic Resilience - What Schools and Countries do to Help Disadvantaged Students Succeed in PISA


Published on

Researchers and policy makers have been focusing on socio-economic disparities in academic achievement since the 1960s. Decades of empirical studies show that socioeconomically disadvantaged students are more likely to: drop out of school, repeat a grade, finish their studies at the same time as their more advantaged peers with less prestigious qualifications, and, in general, have lower learning outcomes as indicated by their poor performance in standardised assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

Published in: Education
  • Login to see the comments

Academic Resilience - What Schools and Countries do to Help Disadvantaged Students Succeed in PISA

  1. 1. Academic resilience: What schools and countries do to help disadvantaged students succeed in PISA Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills
  2. 2. PISA 2015 OECD Partners
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. The relevance of resilience in education Resilience is an individuals’ capacity for successful adjustment despite adverse circumstances • Socio-economic disadvantage is a crucial risk factor for poor academic performance • But some disadvantaged students beat the odds and achieve at high levels in education Countries and schools can reduce the risk of low achievement and foster resilience: • The odds that disadvantaged students will be resilient differ across schools and education systems and over time • Resilience is a key summary measure of the quality and equity of education systems
  7. 7. Resilience • In this study, socio-economic adversity is conceived as relative socio-economic disadvantage (student is in the bottom 25% of the national distribution of the PISA index of Economic Social and Cultural Status) • Successful adjustment corresponds to achievement of PISA Proficiency Level 3 in the three key PISA domains of reading, science and mathematics
  8. 8. How many disadvantaged students succeed in PISA? 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 HongKong(China) Macao(China) Singapore Estonia Japan Canada Finland ChineseTaipei Korea Netherlands Slovenia Germany Ireland Norway Denmark VietNam Poland Australia UnitedKingdom Switzerland Belgium B-S-J-G(China) Portugal NewZealand Sweden Spain Russia France Iceland Austria UnitedStates* Latvia Croatia Italy CzechRepublic Lithuania Malta Luxembourg Israel SlovakRepublic Greece Hungary Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates TrinidadandTobago Montenegro Turkey Chile Qatar Romania Moldova Uruguay Thailand Mexico Colombia Georgia CostaRica Brazil FYROM Jordan Lebanon Indonesia Tunisia Peru Algeria Kosovo DominicanRepublic PISA 2015 PISA 2006% Percentage of students from the lowest quarter of socio-economic status who perform at Level 3 or above in reading, mathematics and science
  9. 9. How student resilience relates to overall student performance at the country level ARE AUSAUT BEL BGR BRA CABA CAN CHE CHL COL CRI CZE DEU DNK DOM DZA ESP EST FIN FRA GBR GEO GRC HKG HRV HUN IDN IRL ISL ISR ITA JOR JPN KOR KSV LBN LTU LUX LVA MAC MDA MEX MKD MLT MNE NLD NOR NZL PER POL PRT QAT QCH ROU RUS SGP SVK SVN SWE TAP THA TTO TUN TUR URY USA VNM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 StudentsperformingatoraboveLevel3inall threesubjects(%) Resilient students (%) OECD average OECDaverage But equity matters too: overall performance in Germany and Denmark is similar to that of Belgium and Switzerland; but in the latter two countries, results are more strongly determined by socio-economic disadvantage, resulting in lower shares of resilient students
  10. 10. Factors that make a difference: Disciplinary climate 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Turkey Qatar Romania Macao(China) Montenegro HongKong… Bulgaria SlovakRepublic Netherlands B-S-J-G(China) Korea ChineseTaipei Chile CzechRepublic Israel Austria Greece UnitedArab… VietNam UnitedStates Singapore Slovenia Hungary Germany Italy Japan Belgium Australia Portugal Latvia Spain Russian… Ireland Croatia UnitedKingdom Switzerland Norway Denmark Luxembourg France Lithuania Estonia Canada Sweden Finland Poland Disciplinary climate is positively associated with student resilience Odds ratios Change in the likelihood that disadvantaged students will be resilient associated with a one-unit change in the index of disciplinary climate
  11. 11. Which school policies and practices can positively influence schools’ climate? • Stable teaching body – Teacher turnover can be reduced by rewarding collaboration between teachers and by developing formal and informal mentorship programmes • Transformational leadership style of school principals – Managerial skills training to enable principals to develop and effectively implement a transformational leadership style in their school
  12. 12. Factors that make a difference: Provision of extracurricular activities 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 Qatar Austria Bulgaria Korea ChineseTaipei NewZealand Israel Germany Japan UnitedArabEmirates B-S-J-G(China) Netherlands Belgium Macao(China) Slovenia SlovakRepublic France CzechRepublic RussianFederation UnitedStates Turkey Montenegro Lithuania Iceland Ireland Chile Croatia VietNam Switzerland Estonia UnitedKingdom Spain Portugal Italy Denmark Australia Norway HongKong(China) Finland Sweden Latvia Greece Singapore Luxembourg Poland Kazakhstan Canada Hungary Romania Change in the likelihood that disadvantaged students will be resilient associated with the number of extracurricular activities offered at school Odds ratios Number of extracurricular activities is negatively associated with student resilience Number of extracurricular activities is positively associated with student resilience
  13. 13. Factors that do not make much of a difference: Class size 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 Netherlands Croatia Belgium RussianFederation HongKong(China) CzechRepublic SlovakRepublic Slovenia Ireland Bulgaria Portugal Japan France UnitedKingdom Canada Macao(China) Romania Montenegro Denmark Singapore Israel B-S-J-G(China) Finland Chile Sweden Australia Qatar Luxembourg Austria Germany Latvia Poland Turkey Estonia Korea Hungary Iceland Lithuania NewZealand VietNam Italy ChineseTaipei Switzerland Greece Spain UnitedArabEmirates Norway UnitedStates Odds ratios Bigger classes are positively associated with student resilience Bigger classes are negatively associated with student resilience
  14. 14. Factors that do not make much of a difference: Computer-student ratio 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 Montenegro Israel Hungary Turkey Australia Austria Luxembourg Germany Italy Sweden UnitedKingdom Finland Poland B-S-J-G(China) Croatia Estonia Latvia Portugal SlovakRepublic Japan UnitedStates ChineseTaipei Canada Chile Denmark Iceland Ireland Norway Spain Bulgaria HongKong(China) RussianFederation UnitedArabEmirates CzechRepublic France Belgium Singapore Lithuania Qatar Netherlands Slovenia Switzerland Korea NewZealand Macao(China) Greece VietNam Romania Odds ratios Change in the likelihood that disadvantaged students will be resilient associated with the ratio of computers available to students Computer-to-student ratio is negatively associated with student resilience
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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 %
  17. 17. -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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. Find out more about our work at – All publications – The complete micro-level database Email: Twitter: SchleicherOECD Wechat: AndreasSchleicher Thank you