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.

OECD PISA 2018 Results - U.S. Media Briefing

The OECD’s PISA 2018 tested around 600,000 15-year-old students in 79 countries and economies on reading, science and mathematics. The main focus was on reading, with most students doing the test on computers.

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

OECD PISA 2018 Results - U.S. Media Briefing

  1. 1. PISA 2018 Results Programme for International Student Assessment First results from PISA 2018 Andreas Schleicher Embargo until 3 December 9:00 Paris time
  2. 2. PISA 2018
  3. 3. Participating countries and economies over time 2000 (+) – 41 participating
  4. 4. Participating countries and economies over time 2018 – 79 participating
  5. 5. What does the test measure? Reading students’ capacity to understand, use, evaluate, reflect on and engage with texts in order to achieve one’s goals, develop one’s knowledge and potential, and participate in society Mathematics students’ capacity to formulate, employ and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using mathematical concepts, procedures, facts and tools to describe, explain and predict phenomena Science the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen. A scientifically literate person is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology, which requires the competencies to explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate and design scientific enquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically
  6. 6. Who are the PISA students: Target population PISA target population  PISA students are aged between 15 years 3 months and 16 years 2 months at the time of the assessment  They have completed at least 6 years of formal schooling Enrolled in: They can be enrolled in any type of institution - full-time or part-time education - academic or vocational programmes - public or private schools or foreign schools within the country
  7. 7. Who are the PISA students: technical standards Schools situated in remote regions and are inaccessible, very small schools, because of organisational or operational factors that precluded participation Students might be excluded because of intellectual disability or limited proficiency in the language of the assessment The overall exclusion rate within a country is required to be below 5% Exclusion could take place either through the schools that participated or the students who participated within schools In 31 of the 79 countries and economies that participated in PISA 2018, the percentage of school-level exclusions amounted to less than 1%; it was 4% or less in all except five countries The overall exclusion rate remained below 2% in 28 participating countries and economies, below 5% in 63 participating countries and economies, and below 7% in all except 4 countries Strict technical standards on student exclusion Why a school or student could be excluded:
  8. 8. Share of 15-year-olds covered by PISA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Germany HongKong(China) Slovenia BruneiDarussalam Malta Finland Ireland CzechRepublic Singapore Moldova NorthMacedonia Montenegro Belgium Russia Estonia Greece Qatar Cyprus ChineseTaipei Kazakhstan UnitedArabEmirates Spain Iceland France Netherlands Norway Japan Lithuania Poland Hungary Australia Chile Croatia Switzerland Austria NewZealand Latvia Serbia Macao(China) OECDaverage Korea Denmark Belarus Portugal Luxembourg Ukraine Lebanon Canada SlovakRepublic UnitedStates Sweden Indonesia UnitedKingdom Italy SaudiArabia Kosovo Georgia BosniaandHerzegovina B-S-J-Z(China) Israel Argentina Uruguay Albania Peru DominicanRepublic Romania Turkey Thailand Malaysia Bulgaria VietNam Philippines Mexico Brazil Morocco CostaRica Colombia Jordan Panama Baku(Azerbaijan) % On OECD average, PISA 2018 represents 88.2% of the entire 15-year-old population across OECD countries
  9. 9. OECD average 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 Reading literacy in PISA Studentperformance 2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003 13.5%…can distinctionguish between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to the content or source of the information 2000 9.9%
  11. 11. Albania, Colombia, Macao (China), Moldova, Peru, Portugal, Qatar These seven countries/economies (Albania, etc) saw an improving trend in their students’ mean reading, mathematics and science Estonia, Israel, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia Singapore Singapore saw an improving trend in reading and science, and a non-significant trend in Jordan, Chile Germany Germany saw an improving trend in reading (since 2000), a non- significant trend in mathematics (since 2003) and a declining trend in science (since 2006) Georgia, Malaysia, North Macedonia, Turkey Brazil, Bulgaria, Italy, Kazakhstan, Malta, Mexico Argentina, Denmark, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Panama, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay Austria, Croatia, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia France, Chinese Taipei Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Switzerland Sweden, Thailand Costa Rica Australia, Finland, Iceland, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic Reading Mathematics Science Legend: Improving trend Non-significant trend Declining trend Not all countries and economies can compare their students’ performance over the same period! Long-term trends in mean performance in reading, mathematics and science Comparison over time: Reading: 2000 to 2018 Mathematics: 2003 to 2018 Science: 2006 to 2018 Longest period available for countries and economies was chosen for comparison
  12. 12. United States
  13. 13. 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 Kosovo DominicanRepublic Lebanon Qatar Philippines Morocco Georgia Panama NorthMacedonia Kazakhstan Indonesia Baku(Azerbaijan) UnitedArabEmirates SaudiArabia BruneiDarussalam BosniaandHerzegovina Montenegro Albania Bulgaria Thailand Argentina Peru Malaysia Colombia Jordan Brazil Romania CostaRica Iceland Mexico Israel Serbia Moldova Malta Uruguay Luxembourg Greece SlovakRepublic Chile Lithuania Netherlands Russia Latvia Belarus Ukraine Denmark Hungary Croatia Norway OECDaverage Switzerland Slovenia Belgium Italy Turkey Sweden France Australia Austria NewZealand CzechRepublic UnitedStates Portugal UnitedKingdom Korea Canada Finland Poland Japan Germany ChineseTaipei Ireland Estonia Macao(China) HongKong(China) Singapore B-S-J-Z(China) Bottom decile Ninth decile Middle decile Second decile Top decile Mean score Mean performance in reading, by international decile of socio-economic status Fig II.2.2
  14. 14. 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 Finland Iceland Baku(Azerbaijan) Norway Ireland Denmark Canada Portugal NewZealand Estonia Poland Sweden UnitedKingdom Kosovo Latvia Albania Mexico Georgia UnitedStates BosniaandHerzegovina SaudiArabia Malaysia Australia Kazakhstan CostaRica Belarus Philippines Jordan Montenegro Morocco Chile Indonesia Macao(China) Moldova Russia Thailand DominicanRepublic Ukraine Greece Colombia France Korea ChineseTaipei Lithuania Panama Croatia B-S-J-Z(China) Uruguay Malta Brazil HongKong(China) Peru BruneiDarussalam NorthMacedonia Singapore Luxembourg Japan Switzerland Argentina Slovenia Romania Serbia Belgium Italy Qatar Turkey CzechRepublic Hungary SlovakRepublic Germany Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates Netherlands Lebanon Israel Between-school variation Within-school variation PercentageofthetotalvariationinperformanceacrossOECDcountries Can the closest school be always the best school? Variation in reading performance between and within schools Fig II.4.1 Performance variation between schools Performance variation within schools
  16. 16. Learning time ≠ learning outcomes 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Sweden Estonia NewZealand Japan CzechRepublic Macao(China) Netherlands Ireland France UnitedKingdom Australia Norway Iceland Canada Belgium Slovenia HongKong(China) Latvia OECDaverage Lithuania Uruguay Luxembourg Portugal SlovakRepublic Denmark Poland Hungary Singapore Austria UnitedStates ChineseTaipei Israel Croatia Korea Russia Bulgaria Greece Italy Turkey Chile Brazil Colombia Mexico CostaRica Montenegro Peru Qatar UnitedArabEmirates Thailand DominicanRepublic Scorepointsinreadingperhouroflearningtime Hours Time in school Learning out of school Productivity Note: Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire, Productivity is measured by score points in reading per hour of total learning time
  17. 17. Beyond reading, math and science Growth mindset
  19. 19. -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Motivation to master tasks Self-efficacy Fear of failure Learning goals Value of school Changeintheindex Growth mindset and student attitudes Change in the following indices when students disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much“: Fig III.14.5 All linear regression models account for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
  20. 20. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Boys Girls Disadvantaged Advantaged Without an immigrant background With an immigrant background Score-pointdifference Growth mindset matters more for some groups Students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much", by the following groups of students Gender Socio-economic status Immigrant background Fig III.14.4
  21. 21. -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 NewZealand Australia UnitedStates Brazil Iceland Colombia UnitedArabEmirates Chile BruneiDarussalam Sweden Denmark Latvia Ukraine Moldova Peru Lithuania Malta Singapore Canada Mexico UnitedKingdom Qatar Uruguay Argentina Finland SaudiArabia Morocco Romania Russia CostaRica Indonesia Thailand Baku(Azerbaijan) OECDaverage Ireland Israel Bulgaria Philippines Malaysia Kazakhstan DominicanRepublic Portugal Greece Luxembourg Georgia Hungary Belarus Jordan Italy Japan France Albania SlovakRepublic Turkey Estonia BosniaandHerzegovina Kosovo Austria Poland Belgium(Flemish) Slovenia Croatia Korea Macao(China) Netherlands Germany ChineseTaipei Serbia Switzerland Panama CzechRepublic Montenegro NorthMacedonia HongKong(China) B-S-J-Z(China) Lebanon Score-pointdifference Score-point difference in reading associated with disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that intelligence can't change very much After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Growth mindset and reading performance Fig III.14.2 Statistically significant values are shown in darker tones Students who hold a growth mindset performed better in reading in most countries/economies
  22. 22. Beyond reading, math and science Life outcomes
  23. 23. -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Spain Austria Albania Norway Switzerland Germany Korea Denmark Netherlands Portugal Iceland Luxembourg Hungary Belgium Croatia CostaRica Italy Sweden SaudiArabia Serbia Greece Japan Finland Kosovo OECDaverage Mexico Romania BosniaandHerzegovina Uruguay ChineseTaipei Moldova France Belarus UnitedArabEmirates Chile Montenegro Georgia Slovenia Argentina Peru Lithuania Estonia Turkey Indonesia Ireland Singapore Jordan Canada Colombia Malaysia Brazil B-S-J-Z(China) Australia UnitedKingdom Qatar Panama Baku(Azerbaijan) NewZealand Kazakhstan Malta UnitedStates Ukraine Poland Latvia Philippines DominicanRepublic CzechRepublic SlovakRepublic Bulgaria Morocco VietNam Russia HongKong(China) Thailand Macao(China) BruneiDarussalam Mean index Index of sense of belonging Fig III.9.2
  24. 24. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Kazakhstan Albania Belarus Mexico Kosovo Ukraine NorthMacedonia Romania Netherlands CostaRica DominicanRepublic Finland Moldova Panama BosniaandHerzegovina Croatia Lithuania Montenegro Serbia Georgia Spain Switzerland Uruguay VietNam Thailand Colombia Iceland SaudiArabia Indonesia Estonia Argentina France Austria SlovakRepublic Portugal Russia Latvia Luxembourg Peru Hungary Italy OECDaverage Baku(Azerbaijan) Sweden Germany Philippines Greece Bulgaria Brazil CzechRepublic Chile Slovenia Malaysia Morocco Poland Jordan UnitedArabEmirates Ireland Qatar UnitedStates Malta B-S-J-Z(China) Lebanon Korea ChineseTaipei UnitedKingdom HongKong(China) Japan Macao(China) Turkey BruneiDarussalam % Students who are satisfied with life Fig III.11.2 A student is classified as "satisfied" with life if he or she reported between 7 and 10 on the life-satisfaction scale. The life-satisfaction scale ranges from 0 to 10
  25. 25. -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Panama Albania Indonesia NorthMacedonia DominicanRepublic Peru Mexico Colombia Kosovo CostaRica Baku(Azerbaijan) Kazakhstan Philippines Jordan Thailand Morocco Belarus UnitedArabEmirates SaudiArabia VietNam Montenegro Moldova BosniaandHerzegovina Qatar Romania Lebanon Switzerland Chile Croatia Serbia Austria Turkey UnitedStates Lithuania Russia Germany Malaysia France Spain Georgia Korea Portugal Luxembourg B-S-J-Z(China) Brazil BruneiDarussalam Uruguay Argentina Finland Bulgaria Greece Slovenia OECDaverage Ukraine Belgium(Flemish) Denmark HongKong(China) SlovakRepublic Malta Estonia Poland Latvia Iceland Australia Italy Sweden Hungary Netherlands Ireland CzechRepublic Macao(China) UnitedKingdom ChineseTaipei Japan Index of meaning in lifeMean index Students' sense of meaning in life Fig III.11.9
  26. 26. What school life means for students’ life
  27. 27. -0.70 -0.60 -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Albania Jordan DominicanRepublic SaudiArabia Baku(Azerbaijan) Kosovo Portugal CostaRica Moldova Philippines Chile Brazil Mexico Malaysia Argentina Indonesia Peru VietNam Qatar UnitedArabEmirates Belarus B-S-J-Z(China) Kazakhstan Malta Colombia Thailand Panama UnitedKingdom Georgia Uruguay Australia NewZealand Singapore BruneiDarussalam Romania Turkey Finland Iceland Russia Korea Ireland UnitedStates Sweden Denmark Montenegro Bulgaria Morocco Spain Japan Latvia ChineseTaipei Lithuania Serbia Italy OECDaverage HongKong(China) BosniaandHerzegovina Norway Macao(China) Israel Estonia Switzerland Hungary Belgium Greece SlovakRepublic CzechRepublic France Luxembourg Germany Poland Croatia Netherlands Austria Slovenia Mean index Index of teacher support Fig III.6.2
  28. 28. -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Albania Kosovo Korea Indonesia Panama Colombia Thailand Kazakhstan Chile VietNam DominicanRepublic Philippines Moldova B-S-J-Z(China) CostaRica Baku(Azerbaijan) Peru UnitedArabEmirates Singapore Jordan Mexico UnitedStates Romania Malaysia UnitedKingdom NewZealand BruneiDarussalam Malta SaudiArabia Brazil Argentina Australia Denmark Ireland ChineseTaipei Switzerland Portugal Montenegro Uruguay Georgia Qatar Norway Belarus HongKong(China) Iceland Belgium Spain France Sweden OECDaverage Serbia Morocco Croatia Bulgaria Hungary Russia BosniaandHerzegovina Italy Lithuania Israel Estonia Austria Ukraine Turkey Slovenia Germany Macao(China) Finland Luxembourg Netherlands Latvia Greece Japan Poland SlovakRepublic CzechRepublic Mean index Teacher enthusiasm Fig III.5.1
  29. 29. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 It was clear to me that the teacher liked teaching us The enthusiasm of the teacher inspired me It was clear that the teacher likes to deal with the topic of the lesson The teacher showed enjoyment in teaching Score-pointdifferenceinreading compared to students who reported “strongly disagree” Disagree Agree Strongly agree Teacher enthusiasm and reading performance Fig III.5.3
  30. 30. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 CzechRepublic Jordan Russia Israel Georgia UnitedKingdom Albania UnitedArabEmirates Belarus Hungary Qatar Bulgaria Poland B-S-J-Z(China) Ukraine Ireland Portugal Latvia Kosovo SlovakRepublic Serbia Australia HongKong(China) Malta Italy Luxembourg ChineseTaipei France BosniaandHerzegovina Singapore Montenegro Austria Lithuania Romania OECDaverage Morocco Germany Greece Sweden NewZealand UnitedStates Finland Switzerland Netherlands Turkey SaudiArabia Moldova Denmark Croatia Kazakhstan Belgium VietNam Korea Spain Slovenia Malaysia Estonia Thailand Norway Brazil Iceland Macao(China) Philippines BruneiDarussalam Baku(Azerbaijan) Japan CostaRica Chile Indonesia Mexico Peru Uruguay DominicanRepublic Colombia Argentina Panama Change in index associated with a one-unit increase in the index of teacher enthusiasm Index of disciplinary climate Index of motivation to master tasks Changeinindex Students reported a better disciplinary climate/more perseverance when their teacher showed more enthusiasm Fig III.5.4
  31. 31. -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 Teacher enthusiasm Teachers' stimulation of reading engagement Teacher-directed instruction Teacher feedback Adaptive instruction Teacher support Changeintheindexofenjoymentofreading Change in the index of enjoyment of reading Before accounting for reading performance and other teaching practices After accounting for reading performance Enjoyment of reading and teaching practices Fig III.6.5
  32. 32. R² = 0.09 R² = 0.10 R² = 0.12 R² = 0.18 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Averagereadingscore Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the above behaviours hinder student learning "a lot" Teacher behaviour hindering learning and reading performance Fig III.7.4 The R2 is indicated in bold when the association is significant Based on country-level analysis Teachers not meeting indiviudal students‘ needs Teacher absenteeism Staff resisting change Teachers not being well prepared for classes Teachers being too strict with students
  33. 33. -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 Index of disciplinary climate Index of exposure to bullying Index of sense of belonging at school Index of teacher support Index of teacher feedback Index of student co-operation Index of student competition Changeinstudents’averagelifesatisfactionassociatedwith aone-unitincreaseintheschool-levelindices After accounting for student and school characteristics Before accounting for student and school characteristics Students' life satisfaction and school climate Change in the school-level index associated with a one-point change on the student life-satisfaction scale Fig III.11.7 GreaterLifeSatisfaction
  34. 34. -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Netherlands Denmark Japan Germany Georgia Austria Croatia CzechRepublic Switzerland Kazakhstan Ukraine Belgium Indonesia Iceland VietNam Kosovo Belarus Norway Estonia NorthMacedonia Israel Slovenia Lithuania Malaysia Luxembourg Russia Hungary Greece Moldova Albania B-S-J-Z(China) OECDaverage Finland Uruguay Romania Thailand Mexico ChineseTaipei Philippines Spain UnitedArabEmirates Italy Serbia Macao(China) SlovakRepublic Panama Latvia Chile Sweden Argentina Montenegro Poland Lebanon France Baku(Azerbaijan) BosniaandHerzegovina CostaRica Peru DominicanRepublic Qatar Colombia Portugal Australia Bulgaria HongKong(China) Turkey BruneiDarussalam Jordan NewZealand Korea SaudiArabia Ireland Singapore Morocco UnitedKingdom Brazil Malta UnitedStates Index of student co-operation Index of student competition Meanindex Student co-operation and competition Fig III.8.1 Student competition is relatively higher than student co-operation Student co-operation is relatively higher than student competition
  35. 35. -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Students seem to value co- operation It seems that students are co- operating with each other Students seem to share the feeling that co- operating with each other is important Students feel that they are encouraged to co-operate with others Students seem to value competition It seems that students are competing with each other Students seem to share the feeling that competing with each other is important Students feel that they are being compared with others Score-pointdifferenceinreading Score-point difference when students reported that the below statements are "very true" or "extremely true" After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Student co-operation and competition, and reading performance Fig III.8.3 OECD average Student co-operation Student competition
  36. 36. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Happy Lively Proud Joyful Cheerful Scared Miserable Afraid Sad Type of student according to the time they spend on the Internet outside of school: Low Internet users Moderate Internet users Average Internet users High Internet users Heavy Internet users Percentageofstudents Internet use outside of school and students' feelings, OECD average Fig III.12.4 Positive feelings Negative feelings
  37. 37. Inclusion The right to be equal The right to be different Social background GenderLocation Immigration
  38. 38. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Singapore Ukraine Korea UnitedStates Turkey Canada Peru CostaRica Chile Mexico UnitedArabEmirates Ireland Montenegro France B-S-J-Z(China) Qatar Belarus Serbia Spain Macao(China) ChineseTaipei HongKong(China) Colombia Brazil Greece Japan Georgia Indonesia Portugal Israel Malaysia Lithuania Panama Estonia Sweden OECDaverage Netherlands Belgium Thailand SaudiArabia Australia Norway Argentina VietNam BosniaandHerzegovina BruneiDarussalam Slovenia SlovakRepublic Kosovo Albania Latvia Russia NorthMacedonia CzechRepublic Bulgaria UnitedKingdom Denmark Philippines Finland Baku(Azerbaijan) DominicanRepublic Jordan Iceland Luxembourg Malta NewZealand Romania Italy Kazakhstan Poland Uruguay Switzerland Hungary Croatia Lebanon Austria Moldova Morocco Germany % All students Disadvantaged students Advantaged students Students who expect to complete tertiary education Differences between advantaged and disadvantaged students are all statistically significant Fig II.6.4
  39. 39. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Argentina Lebanon Greece Albania Chile Qatar Turkey Sweden Brazil UnitedKingdom NorthMacedonia Australia BruneiDarussalam Montenegro Serbia France Denmark Ireland Hungary Croatia Belgium UnitedArabEmirates Israel Estonia Portugal Malaysia Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Thailand NewZealand OECDaverage-36 Kazakhstan Iceland Canada Lithuania Baku(Azerbaijan) Italy Germany Russia Latvia Singapore Poland Norway Bulgaria Romania Switzerland Jordan Moldova Belarus SlovakRepublic UnitedStates B-S-J-Z(China) Finland Austria ChineseTaipei Netherlands CzechRepublic Macao(China) Korea HongKong(China) Ukraine Indonesia Japan Percentageoftopperformerswhoexpectacareerinthefield Expect to work as science or engineering professionals Top performers among all students Girls Boys Gender gap in career expectations amongst top performers High performers in mathematics and/or science who aspire to science and engineering professionals Fig II.8.8
  40. 40. 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Philippines DominicanRepublic Kosovo Lebanon Qatar Panama Georgia UnitedArabEmirates Kazakhstan Baku(Azerbaijan) Thailand NorthMacedonia SaudiArabia BruneiDarussalam Argentina BosniaandHerzegovina Malaysia Brazil Jordan Montenegro Mexico Cyprus Moldova Uruguay CostaRica Serbia Malta Chile SlovakRepublic Greece Turkey Ukraine Belarus Hungary Lithuania Russia Latvia Israel Iceland Croatia Italy Luxembourg CzechRepublic OECDaverage Portugal Netherlands Austria France Slovenia Switzerland Australia Belgium Norway Denmark UnitedStates NewZealand UnitedKingdom Macao(China) Germany Ireland Canada Sweden Finland Estonia HongKong(China) Singapore Mean score Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students Average performance in reading, by immigrant background Fig II.9.5
  41. 41. Students with disadvantaged social background Students with advantaged social background Growth mindset Positive feeling Life satisfaction Sense of belonging Bullying Discipline Teacher enthusiasm Teacher support Co-operation Compounding disadvantage
  42. 42. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Korea Netherlands ChineseTaipei Portugal Iceland Japan Spain B-S-J-Z(China) Finland Croatia Belarus Belgium Norway Sweden France Luxembourg Slovenia Denmark Ukraine Switzerland Peru Hungary Lithuania Ireland Germany OECDaverage Mexico Austria Georgia Italy Chile Moldova Turkey CostaRica Montenegro Canada BosniaandHerzegovina Estonia Albania Serbia Uruguay UnitedStates Singapore Poland VietNam Greece UnitedKingdom Macao(China) Thailand SlovakRepublic Brazil HongKong(China) Australia CzechRepublic SaudiArabia UnitedArabEmirates NewZealand Malta Kosovo Kazakhstan Colombia Argentina Panama Qatar Romania Bulgaria Latvia Malaysia Baku(Azerbaijan) Russia Jordan Indonesia Morocco DominicanRepublic BruneiDarussalam Philippines Percentage of students who reported that any type of bullying act occurred at least a few times a month % Students' exposure to bullying Fig III.2.1
  43. 43. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Macao(China) Kosovo Baku(Azerbaijan) HongKong(China) Kazakhstan Estonia Croatia Turkey Montenegro UnitedKingdom Canada Indonesia Korea Malta Serbia Morocco Australia NorthMacedonia BosniaandHerzegovina Ireland Iceland Russia Finland Netherlands Thailand Jordan Italy Norway Albania Georgia DominicanRepublic Denmark Latvia Greece ChineseTaipei Ukraine Japan B-S-J-Z(China) Slovenia NewZealand Sweden OECDaverage Lithuania Chile Poland SaudiArabia Mexico Germany UnitedStates Portugal CostaRica Colombia Austria Malaysia Singapore France Brazil Qatar Uruguay BruneiDarussalam Switzerland Panama SlovakRepublic Lebanon Belgium Belarus CzechRepublic Romania Argentina Moldova Israel Hungary Philippines Luxembourg UnitedArabEmirates Bulgaria Peru Percentage of disadvantaged students who scored in the top quarter of reading performance in their own country (academically resilient students) % Against the odds: Academic resilience Fig II.3.1
  44. 44. -5 0 5 10 15 20 Colombia Mexico Morocco NewZealand Malta Baku(Azerbaijan) Uruguay Kazakhstan BruneiDarussalam CostaRica Iceland Kosovo Lithuania Thailand Indonesia Brazil Argentina Chile Australia Ukraine UnitedStates Sweden Latvia BosniaandHerzegovina DominicanRepublic Denmark Romania Albania Russia Ireland Moldova Israel Slovenia Georgia UnitedArabEmirates Malaysia SaudiArabia Canada Qatar Belarus Finland UnitedKingdom OECDaverage Italy Greece Singapore Serbia Peru France Croatia Hungary Jordan Netherlands Turkey SlovakRepublic Montenegro Philippines Portugal Austria Poland Japan Bulgaria Luxembourg Belgium(Flemish) Switzerland Germany ChineseTaipei Lebanon Estonia Korea Macao(China) NorthMacedonia CzechRepublic Panama HongKong(China) B-S-J-Z(China) Percentage-pointdifference Difference in the share of academically resilient between those who exhibited a growth mindset and those who did not Against the odds: Growth mindset and student resilience Fig II.3.5
  45. 45. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Parents' emotional support Teacher support Teacher enthusiasm Self-efficacy Disciplinary climate Student co- operation Student competition A growth mindset All countries and economies average Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter Do not exhibit Exhibit % Percentage of academically resilient immigrant students Fig II.9.10
  46. 46. Beyond the average Inclusion in school systems
  47. 47. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 BruneiDarussalam Malta Canada Finland Croatia NorthMacedonia Sweden ChineseTaipei Korea Denmark NewZealand Qatar Japan Switzerland Macao(China) Netherlands SaudiArabia Kazakhstan Serbia France Greece Spain Italy Luxembourg Poland Singapore UnitedStates Estonia UnitedKingdom OECDaverage Slovenia Jordan Portugal Germany Turkey VietNam DominicanRepublic Malaysia HongKong(China) Philippines Morocco Georgia Australia Latvia Lithuania CzechRepublic Thailand Hungary Uruguay B-S-J-Z(China) UnitedArabEmirates Lebanon CostaRica Panama Albania Argentina Mexico Indonesia Brazil Colombia Chile SlovakRepublic Peru Social segregation across private schools (weighted by the size of the private schooling sector) Social segregation across public schools (weighted by the size of the public schooling sector) Social segregation observed between public and private schools Nosocialdiversityindex Contribution of public and private schools to social segregation across schools Fig II.4.5
  48. 48. -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Peru Uruguay UnitedArabEmirates Thailand Australia HongKong(China) Turkey Luxembourg Brazil SaudiArabia Colombia Panama Philippines Argentina B-S-J-Z(China) Israel UnitedStates NewZealand Slovenia Malta DominicanRepublic Macao(China) Indonesia Jordan Morocco Canada UnitedKingdom Belgium Switzerland Ireland Spain Denmark Germany Lebanon BruneiDarussalam Sweden Korea Baku(Azerbaijan) OECDaverage SlovakRepublic Greece Mexico Russia Norway VietNam Japan Chile Malaysia Hungary Qatar Kazakhstan Estonia Serbia CzechRepublic ChineseTaipei BosniaandHerzegovina Iceland France Albania Netherlands Belarus Singapore Montenegro Georgia Italy CostaRica Portugal Ukraine Poland Kosovo Croatia Latvia Finland Bulgaria Moldova Lithuania Romania NorthMacedonia Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantagedand disadvantagedschools Index of shortage of education staff Index of shortage of educational material Few systems align resources with needs Fig II.5.5 Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools Based on principals’ reports
  50. 50. Find out more about our work at  PISA 2018: Insights and Implications  PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do  PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed  PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives Take the test: FAQs: PISA indicators on Education GPS: PISA Data Explorer: Email: Thank you