Schleicher resultados Pisa 2012

OECD EMPLOYER BRANDPlaybook

1

PISA 2012Evaluating school systems to improve education

Andreas Schleicher

Embargo until3 December11:00 Paris time

2 PISA in brief

• Over half a million students…– representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 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– Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy– Total of 390 minutes of assessment material

… and responded to questions on…– their personal background, their schools

and their engagement with learning and school• Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…

– school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .

3 PISA in brief

• Key principles– ‘Crowd sourcing’ and collaboration

• PISA draws together leading expertise and institutions from participating countries to develop instruments and methodologies…

… guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests– Cross-national relevance and transferability of policy experiences

• Emphasis on validity across cultures, languages and systems• Frameworks built on well-structured conceptual understanding

of academic disciplines and contextual factors– Triangulation across different stakeholder perspectives

• Systematic integration of insights from students, parents, school principals and system-leaders

– Advanced methods with different grain sizes• A range of methods to adequately measure constructs with different grain sizes

to serve different decision-making needs • Productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement at

every level of the system .

What do 15-year-olds know……and what can they do with what they know?

Mathematics (2012)

4

Each year OECD countries spend 200bn$ on math education in school

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

570

580Mean score

High mathematics performance

Low mathematics performance

… Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)

… 12 countries perform below this line

Average performanceof 15-year-olds in

MathematicsFig I.2.13

US

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Florida

26% of American 15-year-olds do not reach PISA Level 2

(OECD average 23%, Shanghai 4%, Japan 11%, Canada 14%, Some estimate

long-term economic cost to be US$72 trillion )

Socially equitable distribution of learning

opportunities

High mathematics performance

Low mathematics performance

Average performanceof 15-year-olds in

mathematics

Strong socio-economic impact on student

performance

02468101214161820222426

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US

Singapore

Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei

Macao-ChinaLiechtenstein

Viet Nam

Latvia

Russian Fed.Lithuania

Croatia

SerbiaRomania

Bulgaria United Arab Emirates

KazakhstanThailand

Malaysia

2012Shanghai-China


opportunities


performance

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US

AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS

2012


opportunities


performance

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Singapore

Shanghai

Singapore

2003 - 2012 Germany, Turkey and Mexico improved both their mathematics performance and equity levels

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Singapore


Germany, Turkey and

Mexico saw significant

improvements in both

math performance and

equity between 2003

and 2012

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Singapore


Brazil, Italy, Macao-China, Poland, Portugal,

Russian Federation, Thailand and Tunisia

saw significant improvements in math performance between

2003 and 2012(adding countries with more recent trends results in 25 countries with

improvements in math)

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Singapore


Norway, the United States and Switzerland improved equity between 2003 and 2012

Of the 65 countries… …45 improved at least in one subject

26

Performance of countries in a level playing field

How the world would look if students around the world were living in similar social and economic conditions

28

29

Shang

hai-C

hina

Hong K

ong-C

hina

Viet N

amKore

a

Liech

tenste

in

Switzerl

and

Netherl

ands

Belgium

Canad

a

Austria

New Zea

land

France

Irelan

d

OECD avera

ge

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Hunga

ryIta

ly

United

King

dom

Lithu

ania

United

Stat

es

Sweden

Roman

ia

Serbia

Greece

Chile

Malays

ia

Cyprus

5, 6

Costa

RicaBraz

il

Tunisi

aPeru

Colombia

Qatar

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

Mean score at the country level before adjusting for socio-economic statusMean score at the country level after adjusting for socio economic status

Mea

n m

athe

mat

ics

scor

eMathematics performance in a level playing fieldMean mathematics performance after accounting for socio-economic status

Fig II.3.3

It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods…

…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods

31

38H

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

K

orea

+Li

echt

enst

ein

M

acao

-Chi

na +

Japa

n

Sw

itzer

land

B

elgi

um -

Net

herla

nds

-G

erm

any

P

olan

d +

Can

ada

-Fi

nlan

d -

New

Zea

land

-A

ustra

lia -

Aus

tria

O

EC

D a

vera

ge 2

003

-Fr

ance

C

zech

Rep

ublic

-Lu

xem

bour

g

Icel

and

-S

lova

k R

epub

lic

Irela

nd

Por

tuga

l +

Den

mar

k -

Italy

+N

orw

ay -

Hun

gary

U

nite

d S

tate

s

Sw

eden

-S

pain

La

tvia

R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n

Turk

ey

Gre

ece

Th

aila

nd

Uru

guay

-Tu

nisi

a

Bra

zil

Mex

ico

In

done

sia

0

10

20

30

40

2012 2003%

Percentage of top performers in mathematics in 2003 and 2012

Fig I.2.23

Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skills

Gender differences remain

40

41 Gender differences in mathematics performance Fig I.2.25

Jorda

n

Thaila

nd

Icelan

dLa

tvia

Finlan

d

Bulgari

a

Albania

Lithu

ania

Norway

Sloven

ia

Poland

United

Stat

es

Chines

e Taip

ei

Belgium

Greece

Hunga

ry

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Canad

a

OECD avera

ge

Urugua

yIsr

ael

Austra

lia

Switzerl

and

Argenti

na

Mexico

Tunisi

a

Hong K

ong-C

hinaBraz

il

KoreaPeru

Liech

tenste

inChil

e

Colombia

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

(boy

s-gi

rls)

Boys perform better than girls

Girls perform better than boys

42

Jorda

n

U.A.E

.

Thaila

nd

Finlan

d

Lithu

ania

Malays

ia

Sloven

ia

Sweden

Argenti

na

Roman

ia

Norway

Icelan

d

France

Croatia

United

Stat

es

Urugua

y

Singap

ore

Belgium

Chines

e Taip

ei

Viet N

amBraz

il

Canad

a

Netherl

ands

Irelan

d

Austra

liaPeru

Mexico

ChileSpa

in

Denmark

Costa

Rica

Luxe

mbourg

Colombia

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

(boy

s-gi

rls)

Gender differences in science performance Fig I.5.12

Boys perform better than girls

Girls perform better than boys

43 Gender differences in reading performance

Jorda

n

Bulgari

a

Finlan

d

U.A.E

.

Thaila

nd

Sweden

Greece

Norway

Turkey

Israe

l

Estonia

Roman

ia

Russia

n Fed

.

Slovak

Rep

ublic Ita

ly

Argenti

na

Austria

Switzerl

and

Urugua

y

Austra

lia

Chines

e Taip

ei

Belgium

United

Stat

es

Tunisi

a

Luxe

mbourg

Irelan

d

Netherl

ands

Costa

Rica

Liech

tenste

in

Shang

hai-C

hinaKore

aPeru

Albania

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

(boy

s-gi

rls)

In all countries and economies girls perform better than boys

Fig I.4.12

Math teaching ≠ math teachingPISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ

and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures

44

45

Viet N

am

Shang

hai-C

hina

Urugua

y

Hong K

ong-C

hina

Portug

al

Serbia

Singap

oreJa

pan

Costa

Rica

Tunisi

a

Czech

Rep

ublicKore

aQata

r

United

Stat

es

Irelan

d

Mexico

Norway

Kazak

hstan

Roman

ia

Albania

Indon

esia

Belgium

Thaila

nd

Russia

n Fed

eratio

n

Slovak

Rep

ublic

German

y

Luxe

mbourg

Chile

Finlan

d

Sloven

ia

Switzerl

and

Liech

tenste

in

Icelan

d0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Inde

x of

exp

osur

e to

wor

d pr

oble

ms

Students' exposure to word problems Fig I.3.1a

Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to

students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed

46

Sweden

Tunisi

a

Switzerl

and

Luxe

mbourg

Netherl

ands

Costa

Rica

Liech

tenste

in

Indon

esia

United

King

dom

Lithu

ania

Austra

lia

OECD avera

ge

Thaila

nd

Finlan

d

Colombia Peru

Israe

l

Belgium

Poland

Spain

Greece

Sloven

ia

Hunga

ry

Kazak

hstan

Canad

a

Estonia

Latvi

aJa

pan

Croatia

Russia

n Fed

eratio

n

Jorda

n

Singap

ore

Icelan

d0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Inde

x of

exp

osur

e to

form

al m

athe

mat

ics

Students' exposure to formal mathematics Fig I.3.1b

47

Czech

Rep

ublic

Shang

hai-C

hina

Urugua

y

Costa

RicaJa

pan

Italy

Norway

Hong K

ong-C

hina

Serbia

Croatia

Slovak

Rep

ublic

United

King

dom

Luxe

mbourg

Monten

egro

Sloven

ia

OECD avera

ge

Hunga

ry

New Zea

land

Turkey

Russia

n Fed

eratio

n

Icelan

dSpa

in

Liech

tenste

in

Austra

liaBraz

ilPeru

Chile

Roman

ia

Netherl

ands

Colombia

Kazak

hstan

Mexico

Thaila

nd0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Inde

x of

exp

osur

e to

app

lied

mat

hem

atic

sStudents' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.1c

48

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0430

450

470

490

510

Index of exposure to applied mathematics

Mea

n sc

ore

in m

athe

mat

ics

rarely sometimes frequentlynever

Relationship between mathematics performance and students' exposure to applied mathematics

Fig I.3.2

OECD countriesAll participating countries and economies

The share of immigrant students in OECD countries increased from 9% in 2003 to 12% in 2012…

…while the performance disadvantage of immigrant students shrank by 11 score points during the same period (after accounting for socio-economic

factors)

52

54

Hun

gary

-A

ustra

lia -

Mac

ao-C

hina

S

lova

k R

epub

lic -

Turk

ey

New

Zea

land

-Ire

land

C

anad

a

Latv

ia

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Th

aila

nd

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

C

zech

Rep

ublic

O

EC

D a

vera

ge 2

003

-Lu

xem

bour

g

Por

tuga

l

Nor

way

Ita

ly +

Liec

hten

stei

n

Gre

ece

Ic

elan

d

Spa

in

Ger

man

y -

Bra

zil

N

ethe

rland

s

Sw

eden

A

ustri

a

Bel

gium

-S

witz

erla

nd -

Den

mar

k

Fran

ce

Mex

ico

Fi

nlan

d

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

1002012 2003

Scor

e po

int d

iffer

ence

(with

out-w

ith im

mig

.)

Students without an immigrant background perform better

Students with an immigrant background perform better

Change between 2003 and 2012 in immigrant students' mathematics performance – before accounting for students’ socio-economic status

Fig II.3.5

56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Socio-economically disadvantaged schools Socio-economically advantaged schools%

Proportion of immigrant students in socio-economically disadvantaged, average and advantaged schools Fig II.3.9

Percentage of immigrant students

59

Shang

hai-C

hina

Macao-

China

Singapo

re

Chinese

Taipei

Liech

tenstein

Estonia

Poland

Finlan

d

Portug

al

Turke

yIta

lyLa

tvia

Austra

lia

Austria

Czech

Rep

ublic

United K

ingdo

m

Franc

e

Iceland

Russian

Fed.

Croati

a

Sweden

Slovak

Repu

blic

Serbia

Israel

Romania

Indone

sia

Kazak

hstan

Brazil

Chile

Monten

egro

Argenti

naPeru

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

%

Percentage of resilient students

More than 10% resilient Between 5%-10% of resilient students Less than 5%

Fig II.2.4

Socio-economically disadvantaged students not only score lower in mathematics, they also report lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and share many characteristics of advantaged high-achievers.

A resilient student is situated in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in the country of assessment and performs in the top quarter of students among all countries, after accounting for socio-economic status.

61

Albania

Icelan

d

Norway

Estonia

Spain

Poland

Kazak

hstan

Mexico

Costa

Rica

Malays

ia

New Zea

land

Greece

United

King

dom

Austra

lia

Portug

alChil

e

Roman

ia

Switzerl

and

Urugua

y

U.A.E

.

SerbiaKore

a

Singap

ore Italy

Czech

Rep

ublic

Bulgari

aQata

r

German

y

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Belgium

Liech

tenste

in

Chines

e Taip

ei100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Variability in student mathematics performance between and within schools

Vari

atio

n in

stu

dent

per

form

ance

as

% o

f OEC

D a

vera

ge

vari

atio

n Performance variation of students within schools

Performance differences between schools

Fig II.2.7

OECD average

OECD average

Disciplinary climate improvedTeacher-student relations improved between 2003 and 2012 in all but one country; and disciplinary climate also improved during the period,

on average across OECD countries and in 27 individual countries

62

Japa

n

Luxe

mbourg

Czech

Rep

ublic

Korea

Thaila

nd

DenmarkIta

ly

Macao

-Chin

a

Belgium

Portug

al

Spain

Switzerl

and

United

Stat

es

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Russia

n Fed

eratio

n

Irelan

d

Austra

lia

Sweden

France

German

y-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Change between 2003 and 2012 in disciplinary climate in schools

Mea

n in

dex

chan

geIn most countries and economies, the disciplinary climate in schools improved between 2003 and 2012

Disciplinary climate declined

Disciplinary climateimproved

Fig IV.5.13

64

Norway

Portug

al

Estonia

Switzerl

and

Mexico Peru

Russia

n Fed

.

Liech

tenste

in

Poland

Brazil

Canad

aChil

e

Netherl

ands

United

King

dom

German

y

Monten

egro

Indon

esia

Czech

Rep

ublic

Irelan

dQata

r

Denmark

Sweden

Bulgari

aIta

ly

Turkey

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Greece

Shang

hai-C

hina

United

Stat

esJa

pan

Hunga

ry

Chines

e Taip

ei0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Proportion of variation explained by students' socio-economic status

Proportion of variation explained by students' and schools' socio-economic status%

Differences in disciplinary climate explained by students' and schools' socio-economic profile

Fig II.4.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

531.551979302783

414.947431329217430.53288984921

423.795593172672

507.375949559565493.913526079401

557.719613495498

454.493852942216459.674291542381

419.468595641077404.86657067849406.81928697245410.692469685374

455.967032005237

396.468122669645

431.953772561969432.180262224019

416.098738598916

300.849653448456

527.668467891543

404.539944308878

440.111661967012

494.521894310031

464.989161819408

547.743708881437

626.566663790363

452.789179885987

529.511834268283

497.071637137884

453.49524309675

482.577394045123

532.465311188924506.274697797594

402.907104971934

498.55233132561486.358212456265

502.809277446549485.011835724539

525.143096315803

466.514022482625460.853234111852

488.150072840935484.3703865799

499.317279833724

438.810335285436

499.440165643771501.844010272146

478.664970193416

498.658254792673503.011259906496

490.67709912419

463.432481043829

432.69940428847

552.313972933536

478.845972683071

R² = 0.16337481911871

Percentage of students in schools who skipped at least one day of school in the two weeks prior to the PISA test

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)Countries with large proportions of truants perform worse in mathematics

Adjusted by per capita GDP

Fig IV.1.22

Social and emotional dimensions matter too

72

73 Motivation to learn mathematicsPercentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

I enjoy reading about mathematics

I look forward to my mathematics lessons

I do mathematics because I enjoy it

I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

United Kingdom Shanghai-China

%

Fig III.3.9

75

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

481.366786279212

517.501096817955

561.241096454551

391.459888954175

499.749902827587

452.973426858907

409.291567937716

493.934230896316

520.545521676786518.750335282979

394.329333356314

471.131460759248

490.571021411359

481.644744006327489.845098037208

513.525055819928

478.823277433358

505.540743249801

498.95788231768

559.824796201498

494.98467432064426.737491293011

536.406918234208

447.984414978954 478.260635903011

477.044455015488504.150766311124

466.48143014931

518.078519433354

501.497460196644438.738259877414

385.595556395556

422.632355405519

538.134494733918

U.A.E.

514.745238582901522.971758192682

484.319297801971

388.431709907139

375.114451681749

500.026756625414

431.798408505078

368.102547127357

406.999866988793

530.931003950397

409.626613284347

387.824629620249

492.795697239492

501.127422390954

376.4483986347

573.468314296641

487.063181343903

489.373070348755

376.488601072821

420.512967619054

413.281466667708

534.96508297892

553.766659143613

448.859130247604

Russian Fed.

444.554242787643

511.338207501182

485.321181012553

612.675536305453

f(x) = 138.160916953927 x + 477.587612682211R² = 0.368631715648504

Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy

Mea

n m

athe

mat

ics

perfo

rman

ce

OEC

D a

vera

ge

Countries where students have stronger beliefsin their abilities perform better in mathematics

Fig III.4.5

77

Colombia Peru

Luxe

mbourg

Tunisi

a

Liech

tenste

inKore

a

Argenti

na

Portug

al

Japa

n

Urugua

y

Hong K

ong-C

hina

Turkey

Hunga

ry

United

Stat

es

U.A.E

.

Canad

a

Belgium

Czech

Rep

ublic

Croatia

Shang

hai-C

hina

Poland

Malays

iaQata

r

Netherl

ands

Norway

Sloven

ia

Jorda

n

Austra

liaLa

tvia

Sweden

United

King

dom

Finlan

d-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Gender gap among the highest-achieving students (90th percentile)

Gender gap adjusted for differences in mathematics self-efficacy between boys and girlsGender gap

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

(boy

s-gi

rls)

Greater self-efficacy among girls could shrink the gender gap in mathematics performance, particularly among the highest-performing students

Fig III.7.12

VAYSSETTES Sophie

VAYSSETTES Sophie14-Nov-2013Add 2 boxes to indicate what we see above the horizont axix and what we see below

78 Openness to problem solvingPercentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

I can handle a lot of information

I am quick to understand things

I seek explanation for things

I can easily link facts together

I like to solve complex problems

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

United Kingdom United States

%

Fig III.3.4

79 Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

I’m not very good at solving mathematics problems

My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week

This week I made bad guesses on the quiz

Sometimes the course material is too hard

The teacher did not get students interested in the material

Sometimes I am just unlucky

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

United Kingdom United States Shanghai-China

%

Fig III.3.6

80

Korea

Austra

lia

Finlan

d

Czech

Rep

ublic

Lithu

ania

Denmark

Norway

Austria

Estonia

OECD avera

geLa

tvia

Liech

tenste

in

Icelan

d

Greece

Switzerl

andJa

pan

Luxe

mbourg

Poland

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Russia

n Fed

.

Mexico

Netherl

ands

Urugua

y

Turkey

Peru

Serbia

Roman

ia

Argenti

na

Malays

iaQata

r

Kazak

hstan

Colombia

Albania

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Score-point difference in mathematics associated withone unit of the index of students' openness to problem solving

Average studentChange in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving studentsChange in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Students open to problem solving perform better Fig III.3.5

Students who feel that they can handle a lot of information, seek explanations for things, can easily link facts together, and like to solve complex problems – score 30 points higher in mathematics, on average

81

Korea

NorwayJa

pan

Denmark

Icelan

d

Poland

Czech

Rep

ublic

Portug

al

Estonia

Irelan

d

Shang

hai-C

hina

Viet N

amSpa

in

Liech

tenste

inIta

ly

Sloven

ia

Austria

Luxe

mbourg

Hunga

ry

Switzerl

andChil

e

Jorda

nQata

r

Slovak

Rep

ublic

U.A.E

.

Thaila

nd

Monten

egro

Costa

Rica

Albania

Colombia

Bulgari

a

Indon

esia

Peru-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics

Average student Change in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Students who enjoy learning mathematics perform better Fig III.3.13

82

Korea

Norway

Poland

Portug

al

Denmark

Canad

a

Austra

liaSpa

inQata

r

Viet N

am

OECD avera

ge

Belgium

United

Stat

es

Luxe

mbourg

Thaila

nd

Sloven

ia

Shang

hai-C

hina

Italy

Irelan

d

Macao

-Chin

a

United

King

dom

Russia

n Fed

.Chil

eIsr

ael

Switzerl

and

Bulgari

a

Monten

egro

Kazak

hstan

Argenti

naBraz

il

Albania

Colombia

Roman

ia-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of instrumental motivation to learn mathematics

Average studentChange in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Students who believe that learning mathematics is useful perform better

Fig III.3.17

85

Agree: I feel like I belong at school

Disagree: I feel lonely at school

Agree: I feel happy at school

Agree: Things are ideal in my school

Agree: I am satisfied with my school

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liechtenstein OECD average

%

Students' sense of belonging Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements:

Fig III.2.12

86

Disagree: I feel like an outsider (or left out of things) at school

Agree: I make friends easily at school

Agree: I feel like I belong at school

Disagree: I feel awkward and out of place in my school

Agree: Other students seem to like me

Disagree: I feel lonely at school

Agree: I feel happy at school

Agree: Things are ideal in my school

Agree: I am satisfied with my school

0 20 40 60 80 100

Liechtenstein OECD average

%

Students' sense of belonging Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements:

Fig III.2.12

87

Disagree: School has done little to prepare me for adult life when I leave school

Disagree: School has been a waste of time

Agree: School has helped give me confidence to make decisions

Agree: School has taught me things which could be useful in a job

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Malaysia Albania OECD average

%

Students’ attitudes towards school: Learning outcomes

Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements:

Fig III.2.15

88 Students and perseverance Percentage of students who reported that the following statements describe someone "very much like me" or "mostly like me" (*) or "not much like me" or "not at all like me" (**)

Disagree: When confronted with a problem, I give up easily

Disagree: I put off difficult problems

Agree: I remain interested in the tasks that I start

Agree: I continue working on tasks until everything is perfect

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Kazakhstan OECD average

Fig III.3.2

89





0 20 40 60 80 100 120


%

Students’ attitudes towards school: Learning outcomes

Percentage of students who agree/disagree with the following statements:

Fig III.2.15

90 Students’ intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics


I enjoy reading about mathematics

I look forward to my mathematics lessons

I do mathematics because I enjoy it

I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Albania OECD average

%

Fig III.3.9

91 Students’ instrumental motivation to learn mathematics


Making an effort in mathematics is worth it because it will help me in the work that I want to do later on

Learning mathematics is worthwhile for me because it will improve my career prospects and chances

Mathematics is an important subject for me because I need it for what I want to study later on

I will learn many things in mathematics that will help me get a job

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Peru OECD average

%

Fig III.3.14

92 Students’ mathematics self-efficacy

Percentage of students who feel very confident or confident about having to do the fol-lowing tasks in mathematics:

Using a <train timetable> to work out how long it would take to get from one place to another

Calculating how much cheaper a TV would be after a 30% discount

Calculating how many square metres of tiles you need to cover a floor

Understanding graphs presented in newspapers

Solving an equation like 3x+5=17

Finding the actual distance between two places on a map with a 1:10 000 scale

Solving an equation like 2(x+3)=(x+3)(x-3)

Calculating the petrol-consumption rate of a car

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Shanghai-China OECD average

%

Fig III.4.2

93 Students' mathematics self-concept

Percentage of students who agree*/disagree** with the following statements:

Disagree: I am just not good at mathematics

Agree: I get good <grades> in mathematics

Agree: I learn mathematics quickly

Agree: I have always believed that mathematics is one of my best subjects

Agree: In my mathematics class, I understand even the most difficult work

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

United Arab Emirates OECD average

%

Fig III.4.7

94

I often worry that it will be difficult for me in mathemat-ics classes

I get very tense when I have to do mathematics homework

I get very nervous doing mathematics problems

I feel helpless when doing a mathematics problem

I worry that I will get poor <grades> in mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Tunisia OECD average

%

Students’ mathematics anxiety


Fig III.4.10

95 Students' participation in mathematics-related activities


I talk about mathematics problems with my friends

I help my friends with mathematics

I do mathematics as an <extracurricular> activity

I take part in mathematics competitions

I do mathematics more than 2 hours a day outside of school

I play chess

I programme computers

I participate in a mathematics club

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Jordan OECD average

%

Fig III.4.16

96





0 20 40 60 80 100 120


%

Fig III.2.15

97

o 85% of advantaged students but only 78% of disadvantaged students say feel they belong at school

o More than one in three students in OECD countries say they had arrived late for school in the two weeks prior to the PISA test; and more than one in four students reported that they had skipped a class or a day of school during this period

o Better teacher-student relations are strongly associated with greater student engagement at school

o Even when girls perform as well as boys in mathematics, they tend to report less perseverance, less openness to problem solving, less motivation to learn mathematics, less self-belief in their ability to learn mathematics and more anxiety about mathematics than boys, on average; they are also more likely than boys to attribute failure in mathematics to themselves .

Also worth noting

The parent factorStudents whose parents have high educational expectations for them tend

to report more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics, and more confidence in their own ability to solve mathematics problems than students of similar background and academic performance,

whose parents hold less ambitious expectations for them.

98

100

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fle

mis

h)

Mex

ico

Chi

le

Por

tuga

l

Italy

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Cro

atia

Kor

ea

Hun

gary

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Percentage-point change in arriving late for school that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Perc

enta

ge-p

oint

cha

nge

Parents’ expectations for their child have a strong influence on students’ behaviour towards school

Fig III.6.11

101

Bel

gium

(Fle

mis

h)

Kor

ea

Italy

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Chi

le

Por

tuga

l

Hun

gary

Cro

atia

Mac

ao-C

hina

Mex

ico

Ger

man

y

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Change in the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics that is asso-ciated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Mea

n in

dex

chan

geParents’ high expectations can nurture students’ enjoyment in learning mathematics

Fig III.6.11

102

Por

tuga

l

Italy

Bel

gium

(Fle

mis

h)

Mex

ico

Hun

gary

Chi

le

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Ger

man

y

Cro

atia

Kor

ea

Mac

ao-C

hina

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Change in the index of perseverance that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Mea

n in

dex

chan

geParents’ high expectations can fosterperseverance in their child

Fig III.6.11

Schools make a difference

103

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

16.189517576692215.9850747071189

8.94298730043792

14.5103704379586

18.4637610178288

15.4116747903208

21.7327517076696

13.0142695715782

8.01694497238556

9.93467291755881

11.2733452344148

13.8320502979256

24.2251116061423

22.5527895097349

17.6139348422406

12.9845368351081

16.733485996718715.9289096073137

18.0143076496533

22.9207376480545

8.5290756532660910.3264885893309

13.5527046032089

11.443350168788

22.470830498566

13.291103816885

17.0271187236138

10.3150446113391

15.5700234896146

21.2229655377876

6.64859989341307

22.2199985243645

5.07004102502427

11.2380863321592

15.6942484072018

12.5160259592785

16.045256257081

14.1300739792362

7.78361781969313

17.4135436775296

6.72909493054534

21.9781912018341

17.5738156722987

14.4117397862951

11.5830242259438

10.91711024292268.23674152288972

15.4288114033448

9.32792641718122

16.662721693931

19.4288335709035

8.62271043822466

14.0040840587445

9.4223382225445610.122721230912910.4403682575012

10.7696501190869

18.2228912797887

12.7948520723607

10.3950432847876

14.3305703089692

Adjusted by per capita GDP Linear (Adjusted by per capita GDP)

Percentage of students who have repeated at least one grade

Var

iatio

n in

mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

exp

lain

ed b

y so

cio-

econ

omic

sta

tus

(%)

Grade repetition is negatively related to equity Fig IV.1.4

R2=0.05

Greater equity

Less equity

R2=0.07

Japa

n

Icelan

d

Thaila

nd +

Finlan

d +

Poland

Denmark

New Zea

land

Slovak

Rep

ublic

+

Latvi

a

Hunga

ry

United

Stat

es

Turkey

-

Indon

esia

Italy

-

Switzerl

and

Netherl

ands

Spain

+

Luxe

mbourg

-

Belgium

+

Tunisi

a -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

702012 2003

%

Percentage of repeaters in 2003 and 2012 Tab IV.2.18

Japa

n

Nor

way

Est

onia

Icel

and

Isra

el

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Slo

veni

a

Pol

and

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Kor

ea

Sw

eden

Finl

and

Den

mar

k

New

Zea

land

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Aus

tralia

Can

ada

Irela

nd

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Aus

tria

Italy

Por

tuga

l

Ger

man

y

Spa

in

Fran

ce

Net

herla

nds

Bel

gium

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Total cost per repeater (one grade year)Total annual cost, relative to total expenditure on primary and secondary education (%)

USD

, PPP

s

%

Grade repetition is an expensive policy Fig IV.1.5

300 350 400 450 5000.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Socio-economically disadvantaged student (ESCS=-1)Socio-economically average student (ESCS = 0 )Socio-economically advantaged student (ESCS = 1 )

Mathematics score (score points)

Prob

abili

ty o

f rep

eatin

g a

grad

eIn most countries, disadvantaged students are more likely to have repeated a grade than advantaged students

Fig IV.2.3

Gre

ece

A

ustri

a

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Pol

and

+Li

echt

enst

ein

+P

ortu

gal

Ja

pan

-Fi

nlan

d -

Mac

ao-C

hina

-Lu

xem

bour

g -

Ger

man

y -

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

M

exic

o +

OE

CD

ave

rage

200

3 -

Indo

nesi

a

Turk

ey

Den

mar

k -

Italy

-Th

aila

nd

Hun

gary

-B

elgi

um -

Bra

zil

La

tvia

+Tu

nisi

a -

Sw

eden

+S

witz

erla

nd

Icel

and

-K

orea

-H

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

U

rugu

ay -

Spa

in

Can

ada

+N

ethe

rland

s

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

R

ussi

an F

ed.

Aus

tralia

N

ew Z

eala

nd

Irela

nd

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2012 2003%

Change between 2003 and 2012 in ability grouping

+ 2012 higher than 2003- 2012 lower than 2003

Fig IV.2.11

113

o Stratification in school systems (e.g. grade repetition and selecting students at a young age for different “tracks” or types of schools) is negatively related to equity; and students in highly stratified systems tend to be less motivated than those in less-stratified systems

Also worth noting

Money makes a difference……but only up to a point

114

Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and mathematics performance in PISA 2012

0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

511.338208

385.595556

368.102547

426.737491420.512968

409.291568

447.984415

376.488601

387.824630

413.281467409.626613

391.459889

438.738260

422.632355

471.131461478.823277

490.571021

477.044455

612.675536

481.644744

498.957882520.545522

466.481430

517.501097

553.766659

487.063181

499.749903

518.070400513.525056

484.319298

494.984674

485.321181

573.468314

518.750335

536.406918

501.127422501.497460492.795697

522.971758

478.260636

514.745239

UK

504.150766500.026757

481.366786

505.540743

489.373070

530.931004

489.845098R² = 0.369063315519053R² = 0.00587924272458274

Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)

Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000

Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more

Fig IV.1.8

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

375

386368

388376

427

410

409

439

445

421

388

491

423

479

613

471

376

453466

477478

481482

484485 487489 490

493494

495499500500501

501504506 514515

518 518519521 523536538

554561

573

R² = 0.0502966708290411

R² = 0.0921942651807477

Teachers' salaries relative to per capita GDP (%)

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)Among high-income countries high-performers pay teachers more

Per capita GDP less than USD 20 000

Per capita GDP over USD 20 000

Fig IV.1.10

Among low-income countries a host of other resources are the

principal barriers

In 33 countries schools where a higher share of principals reported that

teacher shortages hinder learning tend to show lower performance

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Japa

n

Thai

land

Mon

tene

gro

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

na

Rom

ania

Tuni

sia

Hun

gary

New

Zea

land

Liec

hten

stei

n

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Bul

garia

Jord

an

Latv

ia

Arg

entin

a

Indo

nesi

a

Rus

sian

Fed

.

Icel

and

Bra

zil

Lith

uani

a

Qat

ar

Can

ada

Ger

man

y

Slo

veni

a

Italy

Col

ombi

a

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Luxe

mbo

urg

Sw

eden

Por

tuga

l

Pol

and

Nor

way

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of all students participating in after-school lessonsStudents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic statusStudents in the top quarter of socio-economic status

%

In many countries, more advantaged than disadvantaged students attend after-school lessons

Fig IV.3.11

118

Lack of qualified teachers of other subjects

Lack of qualified language-of-instruction teachers

Lack of qualified mathematics teachers

Lack of qualified science teachers

0 5 10 15 20 25

Percentage of students in schools whose principals reported that the following phenomena hindered student learning "to some extent" or

"a lot":Slovenia OECD average

%

Teacher shortage Fig IV.3.5

Luxe

mbo

urg

Thai

land

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

na

Col

ombi

a

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Vie

t Nam

Uru

guay

Kaz

akhs

tan

Bel

gium

Mal

aysi

a

Bra

zil

U.A

.E.

New

Zea

land

Sw

itzer

land

Mac

ao-C

hina

OE

CD

ave

rage

Arg

entin

a

Aus

tria

Irela

nd

Fran

ce

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Alb

ania

Can

ada

Latv

ia

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Cro

atia

Mon

tene

gro

Hun

gary

Slo

veni

a

Ser

bia

Bul

garia

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Bottom quarter of this index

Mea

n in

dex

Teacher shortage Fig IV.3.5

Kor

ea

Isra

el

Latv

ia

Slo

veni

a

Pol

and

Arg

entin

a

Net

herla

nds

Col

ombi

a

Fran

ce

Tuni

sia

Qat

ar

Thai

land

Gre

ece

Rom

ania

Rus

sian

Fed

.

Aus

tria

Cro

atia

U.A

.E.

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Luxe

mbo

urg

Bel

gium

Jord

an

Vie

t Nam

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Turk

ey

Indo

nesi

a

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

na

Sw

eden

New

Zea

land

Chi

nese

Tai

pei-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schoolsDifference between public and private advantaged schools

Mea

n in

dex

diffe

renc

eTeacher shortage is more of concern in disadvantaged schools also in public schools, in most countries

Disadvantaged and public schools reported more teacher shortage

Advantaged and private schools reported more teacher shortage

Fig IV.3.5

121 Adequacy of educational resources

Shortage or inadequacy of library materials

Shortage or inadequacy of computer software for instruction

Lack or inadequacy of Internet connectivity

Shortage or inadequacy of computers for instruction

Shortage or inadequacy of instructional materials (e.g. textbooks)

Shortage or inadequacy of science laboratory equipment

50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Percentage of students in schools whose principals reported that the following phenomena hindered student learning "not at all" or

"very little“:Singapore OECD average

%

Fig IV.3.8

Sin

gapo

re

Aus

tralia

Sw

itzer

land

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Slo

veni

a

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Pol

and

Bel

gium

Aus

tria

New

Zea

land

Hun

gary

Lith

uani

a

Uru

guay

Ger

man

y

OE

CD

ave

rage

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Luxe

mbo

urg

Spa

in

Den

mar

k

Nor

way

Mal

aysi

a

Gre

ece

Chi

le

Alb

ania

Rus

sian

Fed

.

Mon

tene

gro

Bra

zil

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Thai

land

Indo

nesi

a

Cos

ta R

ica

Tuni

sia

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Bottom quarter of this index

Mea

n in

dex

Adequacy of educational resources Fig IV.3.8

Per

u

Mex

ico

Indo

nesi

a

Col

ombi

a

Turk

ey

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Aus

tralia

Vie

t Nam

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

na

Rom

ania

Isra

el

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Irela

nd

Tuni

sia

Can

ada

Mac

ao-C

hina

Luxe

mbo

urg

Rus

sian

Fed

.

Bel

gium

Sw

itzer

land

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Lith

uani

a

Kaz

akhs

tan

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Est

onia

Slo

veni

a

Sin

gapo

re

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Kor

ea

Ser

bia

Nor

way

Finl

and

Alb

ania

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schoolsDifference between public and private advantaged schools

Mea

n in

dex

diffe

renc

eEducational resources are more problematic in disadvantaged schools, also in public schools in most countries

Advantaged and private schools reported better educational resources

Disadvantaged and public schools reported better educational resources

Fig IV.3.8

124

Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals

Written specification of student-performance standards

Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers

Internal evaluation/self-evaluation

External evaluation

Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources)

Teacher mentoring

Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school

Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics (i.e. school curriculum with shared instructional materials accompanied by staff development and training)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:

Shanghai-China OECD average

%

Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14

125Students' views of how conducive classrooms are to learning

Students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins

Students cannot work well

The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down.

There is noise and disorder

Students don’t listen to what the teacher says

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of students who reported that the following phenomena occur "never or hardly ever" or "in some lessons”:

Japan OECD average

%

Fig IV.5.4

126

Shang

hai-C

hina

Franc

e

Macao

-Chin

a

Switzerla

nd

Czech

Rep

ublic

Thail

and

Denmark

Viet N

amU.A

.E.

Greec

eSpa

in

Singapo

re

Finlan

d

Poland

Austra

lia

OECD averag

e

Malays

ia

Luxe

mbourg

Mexico Per

u

Portugal

Turke

y

Canada

Tunisi

aChile

Korea

Russian

Fed.

Kazakh

stan

Colombia

Sloven

iaLa

tvia

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

before accounting for students' socio-economic status after accounting for students' socio-economic status

Scor

e po

int d

iffer

ence

Difference in mathematics performance, by attendance at pre-primary school

Students who attended pre-primary school perform better

Fig III.4.12

127

o Educational resources relate to student performance– 33% of the variation in math performance is explained by

differences in principal’s responses to questions about the adequacy of science laboratory equipment, instructional material, ICT and libraries (GDP adjusted)

o Adequacy of physical infrastructure unrelated to performanceo Within countries, class time relates positively to performance

– Holds also after accounting for socio-economic and demographic factors, but does not hold when pooling data across countries (learning outcomes are the product of quantity and quality)

– The proportion of students in schools with after-school mathematics lessons is unrelated to system performance

– Homework relates positively to school performance

Also worth noting

128

o Most countries and economies with comparable data between 2003 and 2012 have moved towards better-staffed and better-equipped schools

o Students in 2012 were more likely than their counterparts in 2003 to have attended at least one year of pre-primary education– yet many of the students who reported that they had not

attended pre-primary school are disadvantaged

Also worth noting

High performers spend resources where they are needed most

129

-0.500.511.5300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700R² = 0

Equity in resource allocation (index points)

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably

Greater equity

Less equity


Fig IV.1.11

30% of the variation in math performance across OECD countries is

explained by the degree of similarity of educational resources between

advantaged and disadvantaged schools

OECD countries tend to allocate at least an equal, if not a larger, number of teachers per student to disadvantaged schools; but disadvantaged schools tend to have great difficulty in attracting qualified teachers.

Governance mattersSchools with more autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better than schools with less autonomy where they are part of school systems with more accountability arrangements and

greater teacher-principal collaboration in school management

132

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

531.551979302783

414.947431329217

430.53288984921

423.795593172672

484.685067484024

507.375949559565

493.913526079401

557.719613495498

454.493852942216459.674291542381

419.468595641077

488.357558008343

404.86657067849406.81928697245

410.692469685374

455.967032005237

396.468122669645

431.953772561969416.098738598916

300.849653448456

527.668467891543

404.539944308878

440.111661967012

474.054187560775

464.989161819408

547.743708881437

626.566663790363

452.789179885987

529.511834268283

497.071637137884

453.49524309675

482.577394045123

532.465311188924

506.274697797594

488.818411796174

402.907104971934

498.55233132561486.358212456265

502.809277446549

485.011835724539

525.143096315803

466.514022482625

460.853234111852

488.150072840935484.3703865799

468.514073102546

499.317279833724

438.810335285436

499.440165643771501.844010272146

478.664970193416480.554307802789

498.658254792673

481.116171960251

503.011259906496490.67709912419

463.432481043829

552.313972933536

478.845972683071R² = 0.133981453407518

Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics

Fig IV.1.15

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

Teachers don't participate in management

Teachers participate in management

Score points

School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school managementAcross all participating countries and economies

Fig IV.1.17



455

460

465

470

475

480

485

No standardised math policy

Standardised math policy

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials)

Fig IV.1.16

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements



464

466

468

470

472

474

476

478

School data not public

School data public

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly

Fig IV.1.16

Finl

and

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

na

Aus

tria

Arg

entin

a

Uru

guay

Ger

man

y

Spa

in

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Irela

nd

Indo

nesi

a

Cro

atia

Icel

and

Latv

ia

Liec

hten

stei

n

Mal

aysi

a

Italy

Mex

ico

OE

CD

ave

rage

U.A

.E.

Isra

el

Qat

ar

Col

ombi

a

Slo

veni

a

Bul

garia

Can

ada

Turk

ey

Aus

tralia

Vie

t Nam

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Kaz

akhs

tan

New

Zea

land

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Post publicly Track over time by an administrative authority

%

Use of achievement data for accountabilityPercentage of students in schools that use achievement data in the following ways:

Fig IV.4.13

Finl

and

Uru

guay

Gre

ece

+S

witz

erla

nd +

Irela

nd +

Bel

gium

+S

wed

en +

Japa

n +

Ger

man

y +

Nor

way

+Ita

ly +

Hun

gary

+S

lova

k R

epub

lic

Tu

nisi

a

D

enm

ark

+O

EC

D a

vera

ge 2

003

+S

pain

Aus

tralia

+Lu

xem

bour

g +

Liec

hten

stei

n +

Net

herla

nds

+La

tvia

-K

orea

+N

ew Z

eala

nd +

Icel

and

+B

razi

l +

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Mac

ao-C

hina

+A

ustri

a +

Indo

nesi

a

Tu

rkey

+C

zech

Rep

ublic

+M

exic

o

H

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

+Th

aila

nd +

Por

tuga

l +

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

+P

olan

d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2012 2003

%

Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student assessment data to monitor teachers

Percentage of students in schools that use assessment data to monitor teachers:

+ 2012 higher than 2003- 2012 lower than 2003

Fig IV.4.19

The issue is not how many charter schools a country has…

…but how countries enable every school to assume charter type autonomy

141

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

naN

ethe

rland

sC

hile

Irela

ndK

orea

U.A

.E.

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Indo

nesi

aA

ustra

liaQ

atar

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Arg

entin

aS

pain

Japa

nD

enm

ark

OE

CD

ave

rage

Fran

ceU

rugu

ayJo

rdan

Thai

land

Hun

gary

Luxe

mbo

urg

Per

uC

olom

bia

Sw

eden

Bra

zil

Cos

ta R

ica

Por

tuga

lS

hang

hai-C

hina

Mex

ico

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Aus

tria

Alb

ania

Cze

ch R

epub

licC

anad

aV

iet N

amS

witz

erla

ndG

erm

any

New

Zea

land

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Italy

Mal

aysi

aFi

nlan

dP

olan

dK

azak

hsta

nE

ston

iaS

love

nia0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of students attending

Government-independent private schools Government-dependent private schoolsGovernment or public schools

%

What type of school do most students attend?

Fig IV.1.22

Fig IV.1.22

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

naTh

aila

ndV

iet N

amLu

xem

bour

gS

witz

erla

ndIn

done

sia

Italy

Kaz

akhs

tan

Japa

nC

zech

Rep

ublic

Net

herla

nds

Est

onia

Alb

ania

Irela

ndU

nite

d S

tate

sH

unga

ryS

wed

enK

orea

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Finl

and

Den

mar

kO

EC

D a

vera

geFr

ance

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

naA

ustra

liaS

pain

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Mex

ico

Ger

man

yA

ustri

aC

olom

bia

Chi

leC

anad

aP

olan

dJo

rdan

Arg

entin

aU

nite

d A

rab

Em

irate

sP

ortu

gal

Per

uC

osta

Ric

aB

razi

lN

ew Z

eala

ndM

alay

sia

Slo

veni

aU

rugu

ayQ

atar

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Performance advantage of public schools

Performance advantage of private schools

Differences in mathematics performance between private and public schools shrink considerably after accounting for socio-economic status

Observed performance difference

After accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic status

Fig IV.1.19

How the theory of school choice squares with the reality in families

If offered a choice of schools for their child, parents consider criteria as “a safe school environment” and “a school’s good reputation” more

important than “high academic achievement of students in the school”.

145

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

531.551979302783

414.947431329217

430.53288984921

423.795593172672

507.375949559565

493.913526079401

557.719613495498

454.493852942216

459.674291542381

419.468595641077

488.357558008343

404.86657067849

406.81928697245

410.692469685374

455.967032005237

396.468122669645

431.953772561969

432.180262224019

416.098738598916

300.849653448456

527.668467891543

404.539944308878

440.111661967012

474.054187560775

464.989161819408

547.743708881437

626.566663790363

452.789179885987

529.511834268283

497.071637137884

453.49524309675

482.577394045123

532.465311188924

506.274697797594

488.818411796174

402.907104971934

498.55233132561

486.358212456265

502.809277446549

485.011835724539

525.143096315803

466.514022482625460.853234111852

488.150072840935

484.3703865799

481.412295638291

438.810335285436

499.440165643771501.844010272146

478.664970193416

498.658254792673

481.116171960251

503.011259906496490.67709912419

463.432481043829

432.69940428847

552.313972933536

478.845972683071R² = 0.0302587183215552

Percentage of students in schools that compete with at least one other school

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)School competition and mathematics performance

There is no relationship betweenthe prevalence of competition and overall performance level


Fig IV.1.18

Mex

ico

Mac

ao-C

hina

Chi

le

Kor

ea

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Por

tuga

l

Italy

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Hun

gary

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All parentsParents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic statusParents in the top quarter of socio-economic status

%

A school’s particular approach to teaching is not a determining factor when parents choose a school for their child

Percentage of parents who reported that a particular approach to pedagogy is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Por

tuga

l

Cro

atia

Kor

ea

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hun

gary

Italy

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Expenses associated with schooling are a concern among disadvantaged families

Percentage of parents who reported that expenses such as tuition, books, and room and board, are very important criteria when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Por

tuga

l

Kor

ea

Mac

ao-C

hina

Cro

atia

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Hun

gary

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Financial aid for school is a greater concern among disadvantaged parents

Percentage of parents who reported that the availability of financial aid, such as a school loan, scholarship or grant, is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Por

tuga

l

Mex

ico

Chi

le

Kor

ea

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Cro

atia

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Italy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

For disadvantaged families, physical access to school is a significant concern

Percentage of parents who reported that the school’s distance from home is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Kor

ea

Chi

le

Por

tuga

l

Mex

ico

Mac

ao-C

hina

Cro

atia

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Ger

man

y

Italy

Hun

gary

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Advantaged families tend to seek out schools whose students are high achievers

Percentage of parents who reported that students’ high academic achievement is a very important criterion in choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Por

tuga

l

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Ger

man

y

Kor

ea

Italy

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hun

gary

Cro

atia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

A school’s reputation is a very important consideration among advantaged families

Percentage of parents who reported that a school’s good reputation isa very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Chi

le

Kor

ea

Por

tuga

l

Ger

man

y

Mex

ico

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Mac

ao-C

hina

Italy

Cro

atia

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Hun

gary

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Advantaged parents tend to seek out schools with an active and pleasant climate

Percentage of parents who reported that an active and pleasant climate is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

Por

tuga

l

Kor

ea

Chi

le

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Mac

ao-C

hina

Mex

ico

Cro

atia

Italy

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


%

Parents everywhere look for a safe school environment for their child

Percentage of parents who reported that a safe school environment is a very important criterion in choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

159

Revolving Door

SCORING:Description: Interpret a geometrical model of a real life situation to calculate the

length of an arc

Mathematical content area:

Space and shape

Context: Scientific

Process: Formulate

Correct Answer: in the range from 103 to 105. Accept answers calculated as 1/6th of the circumference (100π/3). Also accept an answer of 100 only if it is clear that this response resulted from using π =3. Note: Answer of 100 without supporting working could be obtained by a simple guess that it is the same as the radius (length of a single wing).

This item belongs to the space and shape category. Space and shape encompasses a wide range of phenomena that are encountered everywhere in our visual and physical world: patterns, properties of objects, positions and orientations, representations of objects, decoding and encoding of visual information, navigation and dynamic interaction with real shapes as well as with representations.

PISA 2012 Sample Question 4

160

Percent of 15-year-olds who scored Level 6 or Above

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Serie

s1

OECD average

PISA 2012 Sample Question 4

Thank you !

Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org• All national and international publications• The complete micro-level database

Email: [email protected]: SchleicherEDU

and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

Do you have an idea on how to use this data to improve education in your

country?Would you like to work with

us to develop that idea?

Apply to the Thomas J. Alexander

fellowship programme!

http://www.oecd.org/edu/thomasjalexanderfellowship.htm



Backup slides

Schleicher resultados Pisa 2012

Education

Transcript of Schleicher resultados Pisa 2012