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.
LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTS
WHY THEY FALL BEHIND AND
HOW TO HELP THEM SUCCEED
Andreas Schleicher
Director for Education and Sk...
“LOW-PERFORMING”
STUDENTS:
WHAT DO WE MEAN?
• In PISA, Level 2 is considered the baseline level of
proficiency in mathematics, reading and/or science.
• In PISA, “low...
Regular but moderate physical exercise is good for our health
What happens when muscles are exercised? Circle “Yes”
or “No...
Mei-Ling from Singapore was preparing to go to South Africa for
3 months as an exchange student. She needed to change some...
LOW PERFORMANCE
AT AGE 15
WHY IT MATTERS
• Risk of dropping out of school: lower
educational attainment
• Low-skills tend to be persistent over time, from
age 15 i...
Consequences for education systems
Source: Figure 1.10.
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Macao-China
Shanghai-China
HongKong-China
Korea
Estonia
Singapore
Japan
Finland
Liechtens...
The economic value of eliminating low performance
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
900%
1000%
1100%
1200%
1300%
...
LOW-PERFORMING
STUDENTS:
HOW MANY ARE THERE?
All countries participating in PISA have
a sizable share of low performers
Percentage of low performers (Level 1 or below)...
What this means in absolute terms,
across all countries and economies
Overlap of low performers in mathematics, reading an...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mexico
Turkey
Tunisia
Brazil
Poland
Italy
RussianFederation
Portugal
Thailand
Germany
Latvia
...
Low
Performance
Students
Socio-economic status
Demographic background
Progress through education
Attitudes and behaviours
...
STUDENTS’ BACKGROUND
AND
LOW PERFORMANCE
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
19.0
Netherlands
Croatia
Macao-China
Korea
Slovenia
Serbia
Italy
Tunisia
Mexico
Tu...
Gender (OECD average)
Source: Figure 2.4.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mathematics Reading Science Low-performers in
all subjects
Bo...
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Qatar
UnitedArabEmirates
HongKong-China
Singapore
Montenegro
Macao-China
Israel
Serbia...
STUDENTS’ PROGRESS
THROUGH EDUCATION
AND
LOW PERFORMANCE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Estonia
Korea
Shanghai-China
Canada
Macao-China
Singapore
Ireland
Latvia
Slovenia
Netherl...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Shanghai-China
Korea
HongKong-China
Macao-China
Liechtenstein
Netherlands
Singapore
Switz...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Switzerland
Shanghai-China
Macao-China
Japan
ChineseTaipei
CzechRepublic
Austria
Korea
Ge...
The risk of low performance is
cumulative and multidimensional
Source: Figure 2.19.
Demographic background Progress throug...
STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES
AND BEHAVIORS
AND
LOW PERFORMANCE
More hours spent doing homework is
associated with a lower risk of low
performance, at least up to a point
Source: Figure ...
Participation in mathematics-related
activities and low performance
Source: Figure 3.5.
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Help ...
Low performers in mathematics
perceive their effort to be unproductive
Source: Figure 3.6.
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
I work har...
What matters for students’ attitudes towards
school and learning is their performance, not
their socio-economic status
Sou...
Low performers' attitudes towards
school and learning, by school subject
Source: Figure 3.19.
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0...
SCHOOLS
AND
LOW PERFORMANCE
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
VietNam
Indonesia
Turkey
Peru
Thailand
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Tunisia
C...
Socio-economic inclusion in schools
Source: Figure 5.1a.
AustraliaAustria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Esto...
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Macao-China
VietNam
Iceland
Romania
France
Tunisia
Austria
Sweden
Kazakhstan
Slovenia
Belgium
...
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Austria
France
Tunisia
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Romania
Montenegro
Brazil
Slovak...
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Liechtenstein
Kazakhstan
Japan
Ireland
CzechRepublic
France
Colombia
SlovakRepublic
Fi...
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Slovenia
Serbia
Croatia
Greece
Japan
Turkey
Finland
Colombia
SlovakRepublic
Sweden
Iceland...
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Liechtenstein
HongKong-China
Macao-China
Switzerland
Germany
France
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Colom...
School resources: infrastructure,
teachers, materials, class size
Source: Figure 5.2.
R² = 0.24
R² = 0.43
R² = 0.06 R² = 0...
School resources by country’s resources
level
Source: Figure 5.3.
R² = 0.00
R² = 0.35
R² = 0.00
R² = 0.42
0
10
20
30
40
50...
Equity in resources across schools
Source: Figure 5.5.
R² = 0.11
R² = 0.36
R² = 0.01
R² = 0.13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-...
School system structure (1)
Source: Figure 5.11.
R² = 0.17
R² = 0.00
R² = 0.07
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1...
A POLICY FRAMEWORK
FOR TACKLING STUDENT
LOW PERFORMANCE
Students
Socio-economic
status
Socio-economic disadvantage
Demographic
background
Girls (math),
Boys (reading and science)...
Schools
School
composition
Concentration of disadvantaged
students
Learning
environment
Low expectations for students
Unsu...
Thanks!
www.oecd.org/pisa
Andreas.SCHLEICHER@oecd.org
Daniel.SALINAS@oecd.org
Alfonso.ECHAZARRA@oecd.org
For more informat...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Low-Performing Students - Why They Fall Behind and How to Help Them Succeed

65,386 views

Published on

by Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, OECD Low-performing Students: Why they Fall Behind and How to Help them Succeed examines low performance at school by looking at low performers’ family background, education career and attitudes towards school. The report also analyses the school practices and educational policies that are more strongly associated with poor student performance. Most important, the evidence provided in the report reveals what policy makers, educators, parents and students themselves can do to tackle low performance and succeed in school.

Published in: Education

Low-Performing Students - Why They Fall Behind and How to Help Them Succeed

  1. 1. LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTS WHY THEY FALL BEHIND AND HOW TO HELP THEM SUCCEED Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills OECD February 2016
  2. 2. “LOW-PERFORMING” STUDENTS: WHAT DO WE MEAN?
  3. 3. • In PISA, Level 2 is considered the baseline level of proficiency in mathematics, reading and/or science. • In PISA, “low performers” are students who perform below the baseline Level 2 in mathematics, reading and/or science (i.e. they score at Level 1 or below). • Low performers can answer questions that provide clear directions and single information sources and connections. However, they typically cannot make more complex uses of information and reasoning. Low performers: Definitions in PISA Students demonstrate elementary skills to read and understand simple text and master basic mathematical and scientific concepts and procedures
  4. 4. Regular but moderate physical exercise is good for our health What happens when muscles are exercised? Circle “Yes” or “No” for each statement. Does this happen when muscles are exercised? Yes or No? Muscles get an increased flow of blood. Yes / No Fats are formed in the muscles. Yes / No Answering this question correctly corresponds to a difficulty of 386 score points on the PISA science scale. Across countries, 82% of students answered correctly. This question assesses students’ competency of explaining phenomena scientifically. % students by country who answered correctly Finland 93 Hungary 91 Russian Federation 90 Slovenia 89 Latvia 88 Czech Republic 88 Iceland 88 Greece 87 Portugal 87 Croatia 86 Spain 86 Italy 85 Liechtenstein 85 Hong Kong- China 85 Australia 85 Canada 84 Denmark 84 Serbia 84 New Zealand 84 Belgium 84 Poland 84 Netherlands 84 Tunisia 83 Slovak Republic 83 United Kingdom 83 OECD average 82 Sweden 82 Switzerland 82 Chile 82 Turkey 82 Thailand 81 Macao-China 81 Bulgaria 81 Jordan 80 Israel 80 Japan 80 Luxembourg 79 Austria 79 France 79 Mexico 78 Germany 77 Estonia 77 Chinese Taipei 77 Norway 76 United States 76 Romania 76 Montenegro 76 Ireland 76 Argentina 75 Lithuania 73 Azerbaijan 72 Brazil 71 Korea 68 Colombia 63 Kyrgyzstan 57 Indonesia 54 Qatar 53
  5. 5. Mei-Ling from Singapore was preparing to go to South Africa for 3 months as an exchange student. She needed to change some Singapore dollars (SGD) into South African rand (ZAR). Question: Mei-Ling found out that the exchange rate between Singapore dollars and South African rand was: 1 SGD = 4.2 ZAR Mei-Ling changed 3000 Singapore dollars into South African rand at this exchange rate. How much money in South African rand did Mei-Ling get? Answer: ________________________ % students by country who answered correctly Liechtenstein 95 Macao- China 93 Finland 90 France 89 Hong Kong-China 89 Sweden 89 Austria 87 Switzerland 87 Belgium 87 Czech Republic 87 Canada 86 Slovak Republic 86 Iceland 86 Denmark 85 Russian Federation 85 Luxembourg 85 Netherlands 85 Hungary 84 Ireland 83 Germany 83 Australia 81 Korea 81 Latvia 80 New Zealand 80 OECD average 80 Japan 79 Spain 79 Serbia 79 Norway 77 Poland 77 Portugal 74 United Kingdom 74 Greece 73 Italy 71 Uruguay 71 Mexico 60 Thailand 60 Turkey 60 Indonesia 59 Tunisia 55 United States 54 Brazil 37 12600 zAR Answering this question correctly corresponds to a difficulty of 406 score points on the PISA mathematics scale. Across countries, 80% of students answered correctly. To answer the question correctly students have to draw on skills from the reproduction competency cluster.
  6. 6. LOW PERFORMANCE AT AGE 15 WHY IT MATTERS
  7. 7. • Risk of dropping out of school: lower educational attainment • Low-skills tend to be persistent over time, from age 15 into early adulthood • Limited access to better-paying and more- rewarding- jobs • Poorer health and less social political participation Consequences for low performers
  8. 8. Consequences for education systems Source: Figure 1.10. Albania Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile Chinese Taipei Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong-China Hungary Iceland Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao-China Malaysia Mexico Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Serbia Shanghai-China Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Thailand Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Viet Nam OECD average R² = 0.97 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Reducing low performance is an effective way to improve overall performance At high levels of performance, reducing % of low performers further is challenging Morelowperformers % Higher mean score
  9. 9. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Macao-China Shanghai-China HongKong-China Korea Estonia Singapore Japan Finland Liechtenstein Canada Switzerland Netherlands VietNam Iceland Norway Poland ChineseTaipei UnitedKingdom Denmark Ireland Germany Australia Qatar Latvia Italy RussianFederation Sweden Slovenia Indonesia Austria OECDaverage Belgium Croatia CzechRepublic Kazakhstan Thailand Spain Lithuania UnitedStates Jordan NewZealand Serbia Mexico UnitedArabEmirates Turkey Tunisia Luxembourg Colombia Portugal France Greece Malaysia Argentina Montenegro Brazil Israel SlovakRepublic Hungary Peru Romania CostaRica Bulgaria Chile Uruguay Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS): Low performance compromises equality in educational opportunity Source: Figure 2.2. Percentageoflowperformers Low performers come more frequently from socio-economically disadvantaged families
  10. 10. The economic value of eliminating low performance 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700% 800% 900% 1000% 1100% 1200% 1300% 1400% Baseline skills Full enrolment without increase in quality Baseline skills and full enrolment Lower middle income countries Upper middle income countries High income non-OECD Value of improvement in terms of current GDP over working life of today’s 15-year-olds The increase in GDP among high income countries would still exceed total current spending on schooling
  11. 11. LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTS: HOW MANY ARE THERE?
  12. 12. All countries participating in PISA have a sizable share of low performers Percentage of low performers (Level 1 or below) in Mathematics Source: Figure 1.5. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Indonesia Peru Colombia Qatar Jordan Brazil Tunisia Argentina Albania CostaRica Montenegro Uruguay Mexico Malaysia Chile Thailand UnitedArabEmirates Kazakhstan Bulgaria Turkey Romania Serbia Greece Israel Croatia Hungary SlovakRepublic Sweden Lithuania UnitedStates Portugal Italy Luxembourg RussianFederation Spain OECDaverage NewZealand France Norway UnitedKingdom Iceland CzechRepublic Slovenia Latvia Australia Belgium Austria Germany Ireland Denmark Netherlands Poland VietNam Liechtenstein Canada ChineseTaipei Switzerland Finland Japan Macao-China Estonia Korea HongKong-China Singapore Shanghai-China Below level 1 Level 1% 50% or more: 16 countries 10% or less: 4 countries / economies
  13. 13. What this means in absolute terms, across all countries and economies Overlap of low performers in mathematics, reading and science Reading and science 353 331 Reading, mathematics and science 6 463 602 Source: Figure 1.1. Low performers in at least one subject: 12 905 826
  14. 14. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Mexico Turkey Tunisia Brazil Poland Italy RussianFederation Portugal Thailand Germany Latvia Greece Indonesia Japan Switzerland HongKong-China Macao-China Korea Austria Ireland UnitedStates Spain OECDaverage2003 Denmark Norway Liechtenstein Belgium Luxembourg Canada Netherlands CzechRepublic Hungary Australia Finland France Iceland SlovakRepublic NewZealand Uruguay Sweden Percentage of students below Level 2 in 2012 Percentage of students below Level 2 in 2003 % Uneven progress in reducing low performance in mathematics Source: Figure 1.11.
  15. 15. Low Performance Students Socio-economic status Demographic background Progress through education Attitudes and behaviours Schools School composition Learning environment Resources and administration Systems Allocation of resources Stratification policies Governance What are the main risk factors of low performance at age 15?
  16. 16. STUDENTS’ BACKGROUND AND LOW PERFORMANCE
  17. 17. 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 Netherlands Croatia Macao-China Korea Slovenia Serbia Italy Tunisia Mexico Turkey VietNam Montenegro Thailand Portugal Indonesia Greece Iceland Liechtenstein Luxembourg Spain Belgium Kazakhstan Norway UnitedArabEmirates Sweden Finland Qatar HongKong-China Malaysia Jordan Switzerland Japan Shanghai-China Latvia RussianFederation Argentina Canada Germany OECDaverage France Uruguay Colombia Lithuania UnitedKingdom Denmark Brazil Australia Bulgaria SlovakRepublic Hungary CostaRica Estonia Austria UnitedStates CzechRepublic Chile NewZealand Romania Israel Singapore Poland Peru ChineseTaipei Ireland After accounting for other student characteristics Before accounting for other student characteristics Odds ratio Socio-economic status Source: Figure 2.3. Morelikelytobelowperformer More likely to be low performer: socio-economically disadvantaged students Odds ratios higher than 1.0 mean that disadvantaged students are more likely to be low performers than advantaged students
  18. 18. Gender (OECD average) Source: Figure 2.4. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mathematics Reading Science Low-performers in all subjects Boys Girls Percentageoflowperformers Boys are more often low performers in reading and science Girls are more often low performers in mathematics
  19. 19. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Qatar UnitedArabEmirates HongKong-China Singapore Montenegro Macao-China Israel Serbia Hungary Australia NewZealand UnitedStates Ireland Lithuania Kazakhstan Italy Croatia Slovenia Turkey Chile UnitedKingdom RussianFederation Sweden Malaysia Latvia Germany CzechRepublic Austria CostaRica Canada Spain Greece Shanghai-China OECDaverage Norway Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Brazil France Switzerland Liechtenstein Iceland Denmark Estonia Belgium Finland Mexico After accounting for other student characteristics Before accounting for other student characteristics Odds ratio Immigrant background Source: Figure 2.7. More likely to be low performer: students with an immigrant background
  20. 20. STUDENTS’ PROGRESS THROUGH EDUCATION AND LOW PERFORMANCE
  21. 21. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Estonia Korea Shanghai-China Canada Macao-China Singapore Ireland Latvia Slovenia Netherlands Japan Poland ChineseTaipei HongKong-China Germany RussianFederation Norway Portugal Lithuania Finland Croatia Iceland VietNam Austria Australia Switzerland Luxembourg NewZealand UnitedStates OECDaverage UnitedKingdom Denmark Spain Serbia CzechRepublic Sweden Italy Turkey Belgium Kazakhstan Hungary Albania Malaysia France Greece UnitedArabEmirates Romania Bulgaria Montenegro SlovakRepublic Israel Thailand CostaRica Mexico Chile Uruguay Tunisia Jordan Brazil Qatar Colombia Indonesia Argentina Peru No pre-primary education A year or less of pre-primary education More than a year of pre-primary education % Pre-primary education Source: Figure 2.13. More low performers among students with no pre-primary education
  22. 22. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Shanghai-China Korea HongKong-China Macao-China Liechtenstein Netherlands Singapore Switzerland Ireland Canada Austria Australia Germany Belgium NewZealand Estonia Iceland Luxembourg Denmark Croatia Italy Spain Albania UnitedStates ChineseTaipei Finland OECDaverage Portugal France VietNam UnitedKingdom Poland RussianFederation Thailand Kazakhstan Slovenia Latvia Sweden Romania Hungary Israel CzechRepublic Turkey Lithuania Montenegro UnitedArabEmirates Chile SlovakRepublic CostaRica Mexico Colombia Uruguay Qatar Serbia Argentina Greece Brazil Indonesia Bulgaria Jordan Peru Tunisia Have not repeated a grade Have repeated a grade% Grade repetition Source: Figure 2.15. More low performers among students who had repeated a grade
  23. 23. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Switzerland Shanghai-China Macao-China Japan ChineseTaipei CzechRepublic Austria Korea Germany Australia RussianFederation SlovakRepublic Slovenia Belgium France UnitedArabEmirates Italy Luxembourg OECDaverage Croatia Mexico CostaRica Serbia Portugal Netherlands Chile Kazakhstan Bulgaria UnitedKingdom Turkey Malaysia Argentina Colombia Albania Spain Hungary Lithuania Montenegro Indonesia Ireland Thailand Greece Uruguay Israel Enrolled in a general programme Enrolled in a vocational programme% Program orientation Source: Figure 2.17. More low performers among students enrolled in vocational programmes
  24. 24. The risk of low performance is cumulative and multidimensional Source: Figure 2.19. Demographic background Progress through education 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Disadvantaged SES Girl Immigrant background Different language Lives in a rural area Single- parent A year or less of pre- primary Has no pre- primary Repeated a grade Vocational track Socio-economically advantaged student Socio-economically disadvantaged student Probability of low performance (%) Cumulative probability of becoming a low performer Socio- economic status
  25. 25. STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AND LOW PERFORMANCE
  26. 26. More hours spent doing homework is associated with a lower risk of low performance, at least up to a point Source: Figure 3.4. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight After accounting for students' characteristics Before accounting for students' characteristics Odds ratio : hours of homework versus no homework Students who spend 6 hours on homework per week are 70% less likely to be low performers than students who do no homework Lesslikelytobelowperformers
  27. 27. Participation in mathematics-related activities and low performance Source: Figure 3.5. -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Help my friends with mathematics Talk about mathematics problems with friends Program computers Do mathematics as an extracurricular activity Do more than 2 hours of mathematics outside school Take part in mathematics competitions Participate in a mathematics club Play chess Difference between low and moderate performers Difference between low and strong/top performers Percentage- point difference When activities require higher-order skills, top performers participate more When activities are social and recreational, low performers participate more
  28. 28. Low performers in mathematics perceive their effort to be unproductive Source: Figure 3.6. -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 I work hard on my mathematics homework I finish homework in time for mathematics class I study hard for mathematics quizzes I am prepared for mathematics exams Difference between low and moderate performers Difference between low performers and strong/top performers Percentage-point difference Low performers need support when preparing for exams and doing homeworkWhen questions relate to the outcomes of these efforts: differences are large When questions relate to invested effort: differences are small
  29. 29. What matters for students’ attitudes towards school and learning is their performance, not their socio-economic status Source: Figure 3.18. -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Medium performance/ Medium ESCS Low performance/ Low ESCS Low performance/ High ESCS High performance/ Low ESCS High performance/ High ESCS Attendance at school Sense of belonging at school Perseverance Mathematics self-efficacy Mean index ESCS refers to the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
  30. 30. Low performers' attitudes towards school and learning, by school subject Source: Figure 3.19. -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 Not a low performer Low performer in one subject Low performer in two subjects Low performer in reading, mathematics and science Attendance at school Sense of belonging at school Perseverance Mathematics self-efficacy Mean index Early detection Disengaged students
  31. 31. SCHOOLS AND LOW PERFORMANCE
  32. 32. -3.00 -2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 VietNam Indonesia Turkey Peru Thailand Brazil Colombia Mexico Tunisia CostaRica Uruguay HongKong-China Chile Argentina Shanghai-China Macao-China Hungary Malaysia Portugal Romania Bulgaria ChineseTaipei SlovakRepublic Croatia Serbia Singapore Latvia Jordan CzechRepublic France Japan Italy Austria Lithuania Greece Kazakhstan Montenegro Spain Poland Belgium Slovenia Germany OECDaverage Luxembourg RussianFederation Ireland NewZealand Korea Israel UnitedStates Netherlands Australia Switzerland Estonia UnitedKingdom Liechtenstein UnitedArabEmirates Denmark Sweden Finland Canada Qatar Norway Iceland Below Level 1 Level 1 Moderate performers (Level 2 or 3) Strong performers (Level 4) Top performers (Level 5 or 6) Mean index Socio-economic profile of schools Source: Figure 4.4. Low performers tend to have school peers of lower socio-economic status
  33. 33. Socio-economic inclusion in schools Source: Figure 5.1a. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia FinlandGermany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Argentina Brazil Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Hong Kong-China Indonesia Jordan Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Macao-China Malaysia Montenegro Peru Qatar Romania Russian Federation Serbia Shanghai-China Singapore Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia United Arab Emirates Uruguay Viet Nam R² = 0.27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 Fewer low performers in countries with more social inclusion in schools Morelowperformers More socio-economic inclusion in schools % %
  34. 34. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Macao-China VietNam Iceland Romania France Tunisia Austria Sweden Kazakhstan Slovenia Belgium Netherlands Denmark Colombia Brazil Serbia Montenegro ChineseTaipei HongKong-China Latvia Malaysia RussianFederation Germany Italy Jordan UnitedStates Uruguay Spain Peru Canada SlovakRepublic Poland Shanghai-China Estonia Mexico NewZealand Australia Japan CostaRica Portugal OECDaverage Norway UnitedKingdom Ireland Lithuania Greece Finland Thailand Turkey Argentina Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates Croatia Israel Singapore CzechRepublic Switzerland Chile Korea Hungary Indonesia Qatar After accounting for socio-economic status of students and schools Before accounting for socio-economic status of students and schoolsOdds ratio Teachers’ expectations Source: Figure 4.5. More likely to be low performers: students in schools where teachers have low expectations
  35. 35. 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Austria France Tunisia Luxembourg Switzerland Romania Montenegro Brazil SlovakRepublic Serbia Croatia Belgium Portugal Hungary Italy Bulgaria Argentina Germany Uruguay CostaRica Greece Israel Colombia Slovenia Chile Mexico Peru Poland CzechRepublic Latvia Thailand Ireland Indonesia Lithuania Macao-China OECDaverage Spain Finland Netherlands Turkey UnitedArabEmirates Malaysia Sweden Canada RussianFederation NewZealand UnitedStates Estonia Kazakhstan Iceland Qatar ChineseTaipei Japan HongKong-China Jordan Australia Singapore UnitedKingdom Liechtenstein Shanghai-China VietNam Denmark Norway Korea After accounting for socio-economic status of students and schools Before accounting for socio-economic status of students and schoolsOdds ratio Teachers’ support Source: Figure 4.7. More likely to be low performers: students in schools where there is less teacher support
  36. 36. 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Liechtenstein Kazakhstan Japan Ireland CzechRepublic France Colombia SlovakRepublic Finland VietNam Denmark Italy Latvia Malaysia Luxembourg Austria Mexico Switzerland Iceland ChineseTaipei Greece Slovenia Australia NewZealand Sweden Germany Brazil Belgium Montenegro Norway Peru Croatia Turkey Spain OECDaverage Serbia Tunisia Indonesia Singapore Jordan Argentina Canada Romania Portugal Israel UnitedKingdom Poland Estonia Shanghai-China CostaRica Bulgaria Thailand Chile Netherlands Uruguay RussianFederation UnitedStates Lithuania Macao-China Hungary UnitedArabEmirates HongKong-China Qatar Korea After accounting for socio-economic status of students and schools Before accounting for socio-economic status of students and schoolsOdds ratio Teachers’ morale Source: Figure 4.8. More likely to be low performers: students in schools where teachers’ morale is lower
  37. 37. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Slovenia Serbia Croatia Greece Japan Turkey Finland Colombia SlovakRepublic Sweden Iceland NewZealand Norway Shanghai-China Australia CostaRica UnitedStates Ireland Germany Canada Uruguay Peru Malaysia Romania Latvia OECDaverage RussianFederation Portugal Austria Kazakhstan CzechRepublic Brazil Denmark Tunisia Netherlands VietNam Singapore Spain Bulgaria Belgium Jordan Mexico UnitedKingdom ChineseTaipei France Indonesia Thailand Argentina Italy UnitedArabEmirates Switzerland Chile Macao-China Israel Qatar Poland Estonia HongKong-China After accounting for socio-economic status of students and schools Before accounting for socio-economic status of students and schoolsOdds ratio Teachers’ absenteeism Source: Figure 4.9. More likely to be low performers: students in schools with more teachers’ absenteeism
  38. 38. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Liechtenstein HongKong-China Macao-China Switzerland Germany France Luxembourg Lithuania Colombia Uruguay Brazil Estonia Denmark Iceland Argentina Sweden Latvia ChineseTaipei Indonesia Mexico Jordan Norway RussianFederation Romania Belgium Tunisia UnitedStates Spain Bulgaria SlovakRepublic CostaRica Montenegro UnitedKingdom Singapore Kazakhstan Finland OECDaverage Slovenia Australia Shanghai-China Greece Portugal Israel Peru Poland NewZealand Austria Canada Serbia Ireland Hungary CzechRepublic UnitedArabEmirates Thailand Turkey Italy Chile Korea Japan Malaysia Netherlands VietNam Croatia Qatar After accounting for socio-economic status of students and schools Before accounting for socio-economic status of students and schoolsOdds ratio Parental pressure for high achievement and low performance Source: OECD, Figure 4.12. More likely to be low performers: students in schools where there is less parental pressure
  39. 39. School resources: infrastructure, teachers, materials, class size Source: Figure 5.2. R² = 0.24 R² = 0.43 R² = 0.06 R² = 0.04 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Percentageoflowperformersinmathematics Mean of each index Quality of physical infrastructure Teacher shortage Class size Quality of schools' educational resources System-level correlation (all countries/economies in PISA 2012)
  40. 40. School resources by country’s resources level Source: Figure 5.3. R² = 0.00 R² = 0.35 R² = 0.00 R² = 0.42 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Percentageoflowperformersinmathematics Mean of each index OECDaverage Quality of physical infrastructure (below OECD average) Quality of schools' educational resources (below OECD average) Quality of schools' educational resources (above OECD average) Quality of physical infrastructure (above OECD average) System-level correlation (all countries/economies in PISA 2012)
  41. 41. Equity in resources across schools Source: Figure 5.5. R² = 0.11 R² = 0.36 R² = 0.01 R² = 0.13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Percentageoflow/topperformersinmathematics Equity in resource allocation Equity in resource allocation and low performers, after accounting for the quality of schools' educational resources Equity in resource allocation and low performers Equity in resource allocation and top performers, after accounting for the quality of schools' educational resources Equity in resource allocation and top performers System-level correlation (all countries/economies in PISA 2012)
  42. 42. School system structure (1) Source: Figure 5.11. R² = 0.17 R² = 0.00 R² = 0.07 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Percentageoflowperformersinmathematics Mean of each index Vertical stratification Ability grouping within schools Between-school horizontal stratification System-level correlation (all countries/economies with data in PISA 2012)
  43. 43. A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR TACKLING STUDENT LOW PERFORMANCE
  44. 44. Students Socio-economic status Socio-economic disadvantage Demographic background Girls (math), Boys (reading and science) Immigrant, language minority, rural areas Single parent family Progress through education Lack of pre-primary Grade repetition Vocational programme Attitudes and behaviours Missing classes Low perseverance Summary: Risk Factors of Low Performance
  45. 45. Schools School composition Concentration of disadvantaged students Learning environment Low expectations for students Unsupportive teachers, low teacher morale More ability grouping Lack of after-school opportunities Uninvolved parents and communities Resources and administration Lack of qualified teachers Lack of quality educational resources Summary: Risk Factors of Low Performance
  46. 46. Thanks! www.oecd.org/pisa Andreas.SCHLEICHER@oecd.org Daniel.SALINAS@oecd.org Alfonso.ECHAZARRA@oecd.org For more information:

×