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.

Closing the Achievement Gap

1,585 views

Published on

Presented by Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, OECD

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Closing the Achievement Gap

  1. 1. Closing the achievement gap Webinar 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. Quality time Making learning time productive so that students can build their academic, social and emotional skills in a balanced way
  7. 7. Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands New Zealand Macao (China) Iceland Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei Uruguay Singapore Poland United States Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand United Arab Emirates Tunisia Dominican Republic R² = 0.21 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 35 40 45 50 55 60 PISAsciencescore Total learning time in and outside of school OECD average OECD average OECDaverage
  8. 8. Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands NewZealand Australia CzechRepublic Macao(China) UnitedKingdom Canada Belgium France Norway Slovenia Iceland Luxembourg Ireland Latvia HongKong(China) OECDaverage ChineseTaipei Austria Portugal Uruguay Lithuania Singapore Denmark Hungary Poland SlovakRepublic Spain Croatia UnitedStates Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G(China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil CostaRica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand UnitedArabEmirates Tunisia DominicanRepublic Scorepointsinscienceperhouroftotallearningtime Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
  9. 9. Science and careers
  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 %ofstudentswith vagueormissing expectations
  11. 11. 0 10 20 30 40 50 300 400 500 600 700 Percentageofstudentsexpectinga careerinscience Score points in science Low enjoyment of science Moderate 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 epistemic beliefs 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. 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 NetherlandsCanada Japan Slovenia Australia Germany Ireland France Italy Portugal New Zealand Korea Spain Poland Israel Estonia Czech Rep.Latvia Slovak Rep. Russia CroatiaLithuania Hungary Costa Rica Chinese Taipei Chile Brazil Turkey Uruguay Bulgaria MexicoThailand Montenegro Colombia Dominican Republic PeruGeorgia R² = 0.04 R² = 0.36 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 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)
  16. 16. Variation in science performance between and within schools Figure I.6.11 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 Netherlands114 B-S-J-G(China)119 Bulgaria115 Hungary104 TrinidadandTobago98 Belgium112 Slovenia101 Germany110 SlovakRepublic109 Malta154 UnitedArabEmirates110 Austria106 Israel126 Lebanon91 CzechRepublic101 Qatar109 Japan97 Switzerland110 Singapore120 Italy93 ChineseTaipei111 Luxembourg112 Turkey70 Brazil89 Croatia89 Greece94 Chile83 Lithuania92 OECDaverage100 Uruguay84 CABA(Argentina)82 Romania70 VietNam65 Korea101 Australia117 UnitedKingdom111 Peru66 Colombia72 Thailand69 HongKong(China)72 FYROM80 Portugal94 DominicanRepublic59 Indonesia52 Georgia92 Jordan79 NewZealand121 UnitedStates108 Montenegro81 Tunisia47 Sweden117 Mexico57 Albania69 Kosovo57 Macao(China)74 Algeria54 Estonia88 Moldova83 CostaRica55 Russia76 Canada95 Poland92 Denmark91 Latvia75 Ireland88 Spain86 Norway103 Finland103 Iceland93 Between-school variation Within-school variation Total variation as a proportion of the OECD average OECD average 69% OECD average 30% %
  17. 17. 200 300 400 500 600 700 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 PISA index of economic, social and cultural status Public schools Private schools Below 1b Level 1b Level 1a Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Lev 6 Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile Scorepoints
  18. 18. 200 300 400 500 600 700 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 PISA index of economic, social and cultural status Public schools Private schools Below 1b Level 1b Level 1a Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Lev 6 Scorepoints Viet Nam: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
  19. 19. 200 300 400 500 600 700 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 PISA index of economic, social and cultural status Public schools Private schools Below 1b Level 1b Level 1a Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Lev 6 Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile Scorepoints
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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 Demark Estonia 12 France Germany Greece Hungary 5 Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Latvia Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands 9 Norwy Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey 11 3 Albania Brazil B-S-G-J (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
  22. 22. Integrating immigrants
  23. 23. Student performance in science by immigrant background Figure I.7.4 350 400 450 500 550 600 Greece CostaRica Jordan CABA(Argentina) Israel Sweden France Slovenia Austria Germany Netherlands Denmark Italy Norway Belgium OECDaverage Spain Croatia UnitedStates Luxembourg Switzerland Qatar Portugal Russia UnitedArabEmirates UnitedKingdom Ireland Australia Estonia HongKong(China) NewZealand Canada Macao(China) Singapore Score points Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students
  24. 24. Percentage of immigrant students and education systems' average performance in science OECD average CABA (Argentina) Costa Rica Sweden Jordan Luxembourg United States Denmark Italy Australia Portugal Russia Hong Kong (China) Qatar Belgium Israel Croatia United Arab Emirates Ireland Greece New Zealand Macao-China Spain Switzerland Estonia 1.8, 332 Netherlands Germany Singapore Austria Canada United Kingdom Slovenia France R² = 0.09 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Meanscienceperformance Percentage of immigrant students Figure I.7.3
  25. 25. -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 CzechRepublic Slovenia SlovakRepublic Switzerland Chile Australia Canada Mexico Belgium DominicanRep. OECDaverage Algeria Turkey Thailand FYROM Jordan Brazil Tunisia Peru ChineseTaipei Lithuania Uruguay CostaRica Indonesia Croatia Japan Korea Israel Greece France Spain Italy rinidad&Tobago Estonia Latvia Colombia Lebanon Netherlands After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Score-point difference in science when principals reported that school teachers cooperate by exchanging ideas or material Teacher collaboration and science performance Table II.6.21
  26. 26. 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

×