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 - Excellence and Equity

3,349 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

PISA - Excellence and Equity

  1. 1. Excellence and equity 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. “the ability to engage with science- related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen” Science in PISA
  5. 5. •Explain phenomena scientifically •Evaluate and design scientific enquiry •Interpret data and evidence scientifically Competencies Recognise, offer and evaluate explanations for a range of natural and technological phenomena. Describe and appraise scientific investigations and propose ways of addressing questions scientifically. Analyse and evaluate data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations and draw appropriate scientific conclusions.
  6. 6. Trends in science performance 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 OECD average Studentperformance
  7. 7. Trends in science performance 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD average
  8. 8. Singapore JapanEstonia Chinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China) Canada Vietnam Hong Kong (China) B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia Australia United KingdomGermany Netherlands Switzerland IrelandBelgium DenmarkPoland PortugalNorway United StatesAustria FranceSweden Czech Rep.Spain Latvia Russia LuxembourgItaly HungaryLithuania CroatiaCABA (Argentina) Iceland IsraelMalta Slovak Rep. Greece Chile Bulgaria United Arab Emirates UruguayRomania Moldova AlbaniaTurkey Trinidad and TobagoThailand Costa RicaQatar ColombiaMexico MontenegroJordan IndonesiaBrazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia FYROM KosovoAlgeria Dominican Rep. (332)350 400 450 500 550 0510152025 Meanscienceperformance Higherperfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity Science performance in PISA (2015) More equity
  9. 9. 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 More equityMore equity High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity
  10. 10. Colombia NorwayPortugal Romania 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 performance Higherperfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Percentage of resilient students Figure I.6.10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 VietNam Macao(China) HongKong(China) Singapore Japan Estonia ChineseTaipei B-S-J-G(China) Finland Korea Spain Canada Portugal UnitedKingdom Latvia Slovenia Poland Germany Australia UnitedStates Netherlands NewZealand Ireland OECDaverage Switzerland Denmark Belgium France Italy Norway Austria Russia CzechRepublic Sweden Croatia Lithuania Turkey Malta Luxembourg Hungary Thailand Greece SlovakRepublic Iceland Israel CABA(Argentina) Chile Uruguay Bulgaria Moldova TrinidadandTobago Mexico Colombia Romania Indonesia CostaRica Brazil Montenegro UnitedArabEmirates Jordan Georgia Algeria Lebanon Qatar Tunisia FYROM Peru Kosovo DominicanRepublic % Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the ESCS index within their country/economy and perform among the top 25% across all countries/economies, after accounting for socio- economic status
  14. 14. The global talent pool
  15. 15. The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective Figure I.2.18 United States (8.5%); 300k B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k Japan (15.3%); 174k Germany (10.6%); 79k Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k Korea (10.6%); 60k France (8.0%); 59k Russia (3.7%); 42k Canada (12.4%); 41k Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k Australia (11.2%); Poland (7.3%); Netherlands (11.1%) Italy (4.1%) Spain (5.0%) Brazil (0.7%) Singapore (24.2%) Belgium (9.0%) Finland (14.3%) Switzerland (9.8%) Sweden (8.5%) Portugal (7.4%) New Zealand (12.8%) Israel (5.9%) Others Share of top performers among 15-year-old students: Less than 1% 1 to 2.5% 2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10% 10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15% More than 15%
  16. 16. Gender The difference is not how good they are at science but in their attitudes to science
  17. 17. -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Science Explaining phenomena scientifically Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry Interpreting data and evidence scientifically Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Physical systems Living systems Earth and space Boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses in science Figure I.2.29 It is harder for boys, on average, to perform well on these types of tasks... Score-pointdifference(boys-girls) Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas
  18. 18. -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Science Explaining phenomena scientifically Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry Interpreting data and evidence scientifically Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Physical systems Living systems Earth and space Top-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses Figure I.2.29 ...but the highest- achieving boys perform better than the highest-achieving girls on all types of tasks, including these Score-pointdifference(boys-girls) Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas
  19. 19. -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 Science Explaining phenomena scientifically Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry Interpreting data and evidence scientifically Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Physical systems Living systems Earth and space Bottom-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses Figure I.2.29 ... It is harder for girls to perform well on these types of tasks, even among low achievers Score-pointdifference(boys-girls) Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas
  20. 20. Science and careers
  21. 21. Students’ career expectations 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
  22. 22. Boys and girls’ expectations of a science career Figure I.3.5 0 5 10 15 20 ...science and engineering professionals ...health professionals ...information and communication technology (ICT) professionals ...science-related technicians or associate professionals % Girls Boys Students who expect to work as...
  23. 23. Students’ enjoyment of learning science Figure I.3.9 0 20 40 60 80 I like reading about <broad science> I am happy working on <broad science> topics I generally have fun when I am learning <broad science> topics I am interested in learning about <broad science> I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in <broad science> % Girls Boys Percentage of students who reported that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements
  24. 24. 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   
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. LessonsfromPISA Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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 A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve  Universal educational standards and personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body… … as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity  Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
  29. 29. CABA (Argentina) Costa Rica Sweden Bulgaria Romania Viet Nam Uruguay United States Norway Chile Hungary B-S-J-G (China) Turkey Mexico Portugal Iceland Korea Albania Japan Trinidad and Tobago UAE Algeria Ireland Indonesia New Zealand Colombia Peru Macao (China) Spain Switzerland Lebanon Netherlands Slovak Republic UK Slovenia Brazil Kosovo Finland Thailand Latvia R² = 0.20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Socio-economicinclusionacrossschools Academic inclusion across schools (%) OECD average OECD average Academic and social inclusion across schools Figure II.5.12
  30. 30. 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 Investing resources where they can make most of a difference  Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)  Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes
  31. 31. 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)
  32. 32. Luxembourg Chile Australia Turkey Mexico Portugal Iceland Japan Greece New Zealand Spain Latvia Estonia Slovak Republic Canada United Kingdom Finland R² = 0.31 350 400 450 500 550 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 PISAsciencescore Equity in resource allocation Principals in disadvantaged schools more concerned about the material resources Principals in advantaged schools more concerned about the material resources OECD average OECD average Equity in allocation of material and human resources Based on Figure II.6.4
  33. 33. Different schools
  34. 34. 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% %
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. School performance Striving to have excellent schools in every neighbourhood and making them accessible to all students
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. Integrating immigrants
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. Immigrant students’ performance in science by country of origin and destination Figure I.7.9 400 420 440 460 480 500 Netherlands Switzerland Germany Belgium Austria Denmark Students from Turkey in: 400 450 500 550 600 Australia New Zealand Hong Kong (China) Macao (China) Netherlands Mean science performance Students from mainland China in: Second-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic status First-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic status 350 400 450 500 Netherlands United Arab Emirates Finland Denmark Qatar Students from Arabic-speaking countries in:
  44. 44. 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  Capacity at the point of delivery  Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential  Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools  Keeping teaching an attractive profession  System-wide career development …
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. Teachers
  47. 47. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Malta Qatar UnitedStates Singapore UnitedKingdom Croatia Australia SlovakRepublic Greece Romania Georgia Luxembourg TrinidadandTobago Japan Portugal Lebanon Switzerland UnitedArabEmirates VietNam Brazil Chile Montenegro B-S-J-G(China) Canada Netherlands Israel Estonia Lithuania NewZealand Norway Mexico Germany CzechRepublic OECDaverage Kosovo Colombia Russia Austria FYROM Latvia Finland Bulgaria Spain Macao(China) HongKong(China) Turkey DominicanRepublic Thailand Belgium Poland Indonesia Jordan Hungary Denmark Sweden France Uruguay Ireland Moldova Italy Peru Slovenia CostaRica ChineseTaipei Iceland Algeria Tunisia Korea CABA(Argentina) Score-pointdifference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status Disciplinary climate and science performance Figure II.3.7 A more positive disciplinary climate is associated with better student performance in almost all countries/economies
  48. 48. -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Malta Lebanon Norway VietNam Finland Denmark HongKong(China) Qatar Sweden Singapore ChineseTaipei Australia UnitedKingdom UnitedArabEmirates B-S-J-G(China) Lithuania Macao(China) Moldova UnitedStates Iceland Estonia Thailand TrinidadandTobago Germany Ireland Portugal Canada Latvia Hungary Algeria Korea OECDaverage Turkey Georgia Jordan France Croatia Israel Switzerland FYROM Netherlands CostaRica Poland Slovenia Japan NewZealand Montenegro Bulgaria Mexico Brazil Russia Spain Chile CABA(Argentina) Greece Belgium Indonesia Italy DominicanRepublic Luxembourg Colombia Kosovo Peru CzechRepublic Tunisia Austria SlovakRepublic Romania Uruguay Score-pointdifference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status Teacher support in science lessons and science performance Figure II.3.12 Teacher support in science lessons is associated with lower student performance Teacher support in science lessons is associated with better student performance
  49. 49. 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
  50. 50. -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
  51. 51. 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  Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems  Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)  High level of metacognitive content of instruction
  52. 52. Quality time Making learning time productive so that students can build their academic, social and emotional skills in a balanced way
  53. 53. 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
  54. 54. 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
  55. 55. Balancing curricula
  56. 56. Overall science scale, 532 Content knowledge, 538 Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 528 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 ChineseTaipei Score points Comparing countries and economies on the different science knowledge subscales Figure I.2.30
  57. 57. Overall science scale, 556 Overall science scale, 532 Content knowledge, 553 Content knowledge, 538 Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 558 Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 528 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 SingaporeChineseTaipei Score points Comparing countries and economies on the different science knowledge subscales Figure I.2.30
  58. 58. Overall science scale, 556 Overall science scale, 532 Overall science scale, 495 Content knowledge, 553 Content knowledge, 538 Content knowledge, 501 Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 558 Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 528 Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 490 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 Singapore Chinese TaipeiAustria Score points Comparing countries and economies on the different science knowledge subscales Figure I.2.30
  59. 59. 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 Governance, incentives, accountability, knowledge management  Aligned incentive structures For students  How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education  Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard  Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well For teachers  Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation  Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues  Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices  A balance between vertical and lateral accountability  Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it  A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
  60. 60. Governance Across the OECD, 70% of students attend schools whose principals have considerable responsibility for hiring teachers, and in half the cases also over budget allocations within the school
  61. 61. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Macao(China) CzechRepublic UnitedKingdom Lithuania Netherlands Thailand SlovakRepublic Estonia Sweden NewZealand Latvia HongKong(China) Denmark Indonesia Iceland Russia Bulgaria UnitedStates Chile Poland Slovenia Georgia Australia Israel Ireland Finland ChineseTaipei Singapore Japan Lebanon Norway FYROM OECDaverage Moldova Switzerland Belgium Romania Luxembourg Colombia Korea Canada Peru Croatia Qatar Hungary CABA(Argentina) Germany Portugal TrinidadandTobago UnitedArabEmirates France Austria Montenegro Spain Italy Malta CostaRica B-S-J-G(China) Brazil DominicanRepublic VietNam Mexico Kosovo Algeria Uruguay Jordan Tunisia Turkey Greece 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 Disadvantaged schools have more school autonomy Advantaged schools have more school autonomy
  62. 62. 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
  63. 63. Public and private schools Across OECD countries, 84% of students attend public schools, 12% government-dependent private schools and 4% independent private schools PISA generally observes no systematic net performance differences
  64. 64. -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
  65. 65. Student assessments and teacher appraisals are widely used In five out of six school systems, students are assessed at least once a year with mandatory standardised tests 81% of students are in schools where tests and principal or senior staff observations of lessens are used to monitor teacher practice
  66. 66. Frequency of mandatory standardised tests at school Figure II.4.21 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Sweden UnitedKingdom Latvia Ireland Russia Malta Iceland Moldova Algeria Chile Singapore Poland FYROM Italy Albania Luxembourg B-S-J-G(China) Indonesia Qatar UnitedStates Jordan Denmark Thailand Tunisia ChineseTaipei Canada CABA(Argentina) Kosovo Estonia Romania Macao(China) UnitedArabEmirates Israel Lebanon Finland OECDaverage Greece Colombia Hungary Georgia SlovakRepublic Norway Korea France Bulgaria Peru Brazil Austria Switzerland Turkey Mexico VietNam HongKong(China) Portugal TrinidadandTobago Spain Croatia Slovenia Lithuania Belgium Germany Uruguay Montenegro DominicanRepublic CostaRica % Percentage of students in schools where mandatory standardised tests are used: Never 1-2 times a year 3-5 times a year Monthly More than once a month
  67. 67. 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  Coherence of policies and practices  Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system  Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time  Consistency of implementation  Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)
  68. 68. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Total time per week in regular lessons Index of teacher support School is located in a city Index of shortage of educational material School offers a science club School offers science competitions Academic performance considered for school admission Index of science-specific resources Class size Student's socio-economic profile, squared Student has no immigrant background Index of school disciplinary climate Student is enrolled in a general programme Student speaks at home the test language Index of disciplinary climate in science lessons Requirement to attend at least one science course School's socio-economic profile Index of teacher-directed instruction Index of adaptive instruction Student's socio-economic profile Level of confidence that a relationship exists (z-scores) All countries and economies OECD countries Factors associated with a higher science performance Figure II.7.2 Positive association with science performance
  69. 69. -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 Ability grouping within schools Teachers' participation in professional development Index of educational leadership Residence considered for school admission Student attends a private school Index of student behaviour hindering learning Student skipped a school day Student arrived late for classes Index of enquiry-based instruction Student is a girl After-school study time Index of perceived feedback Student had repeated a grade at least once Level of confidence that a relationship exists (z-scores) All countries and economies OECD countries Factors associated with a lower science performance Figure II.7.2 Negative association with science performance
  70. 70. 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

×