Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Excellence and equity
Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills
PISA in brief - 2015
In2015,overhalfamillionstudents…- representing28million15-year-oldsin72countries/economies
…tookaninternationallyagreed2-hourtest…- Goesbeyondtestingwhetherstudentscanreproducewhattheyweretaught toassessstudents’capacityto
extrapolatefromwhattheyknowandcreativelyapplytheirknowledgeinnovelsituations- Totalof390minutesofassessmentmaterial
…andrespondedtoquestionson…- theirpersonalbackground,theirschools,theirwell-beingandtheirmotivation
Parents,principals,teachersandsystemleadersprovideddataon:- schoolpolicies,practices,resourcesandinstitutionalfactorsthathelpexplainperformancedifferences- 89,000parents,93,000teachersand17,500principalsresponded
Map of PISA countries and economies
PISA 2015
OECDPartners
“the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen”
Science in PISA
Drag Ragworms and Common Sole into Tank 2 and Marsh Grass and Shellfish into Tank 3This question requires students to understand a system and the role of several organisms within that system. In order to answer correctly, students must understand the goal of the fish farm, the function of each of the three tanks therein, and which organisms will best fulfill each function. Students must use information provided in the stimulus and the diagram, including a footnote under the diagram
Trends in science performance
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD average
Stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce
Trends in science performance
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
Mass.
OECD average
Singapore
JapanEstoniaChinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China) CanadaVietnam Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) Korea
New Zealand SloveniaAustralia United KingdomGermany NetherlandsSwitzerland IrelandBelgium DenmarkPoland PortugalNorway United StatesAustria FranceSweden Czech Rep.Spain LatviaRussia LuxembourgItaly HungaryLithuania CroatiaCABA (Argentina) IcelandIsraelMalta Slovak Rep.Greece
Chile BulgariaUnited Arab Emirates UruguayRomania
Moldova AlbaniaTurkey Trinidad and TobagoThailand Costa RicaQatar ColombiaMexico MontenegroJordanIndonesiaBrazil PeruLebanonTunisia
FYROM KosovoAlgeria
Dominican Rep. (332)350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Hig
her
perf
oman
ce
High performanceHigh equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceHigh equity
Science performance in PISA (2015)
More equity
SingaporeJapan
EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland Macao (China)CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
Australia United KingdomGermanyNetherlands
SwitzerlandIrelandBelgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
SwedenCzech Rep. Spain Latvia RussiaLuxembourg ItalyHungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland
IsraelMaltaSlovak Rep.
GreeceChile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguayRomania
Moldova TurkeyTrinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico MontenegroJordan
Indonesia BrazilPeruLebanon
Tunisia
FYROMKosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Hig
her
perf
oman
ce
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries combine excellence with equity
More equityMore equity
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
Chinese Taipei
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Denmark
EstoniaFinland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong (China)
Hungary Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Korea
Latvia
LithuaniaLuxembourg
Macao (China)
Mexico Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
NorwayPolandPortugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS
More equity
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)
Some countries improvedperformance or equity
Hig
her
perf
oman
ce
High performanceHigh equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow equity
Colombia
NorwayPortugal
Romania
350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS
More equity
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)
Some countries improvedperformance
Hig
her
perf
oman
ce
High performanceHigh equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow equity
Brazil
BulgariaChile
Mexico Montenegro
Slovenia
Thailand
United States
350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS
More equity
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)
Some countries improved equity
Hig
her
perf
oman
ce
High performanceHigh equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow equity
-2 -1 0 1 2
300
400
500
600
700
ESCS
PISAsc
iencescale
USA2006USA2015
Nodifference
Significantdifference
Greaterequity
ESCS
-2 -1 0 1 2
300
400
500
600
700
PISAsc
iencescale
USA2015
20152016
2016
2015
2014
2015
PISA-basedtestforschools
You will find more information on theses Flyers, or at www.pisa4you.org
with
Poverty is not destiny - Science performanceby international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630D
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
40
Alg
eria
52
Kos
ovo
10Q
atar
3FY
RO
M 1
3Tu
nisi
a 39
Mon
tene
gro
11Jo
rdan
21
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
s 3G
eorg
ia 1
9Le
bano
n 27
Indo
nesi
a 74
Mex
ico
53Pe
ru 5
0C
osta
Ric
a 38
Bra
zil 4
3Tu
rkey
59
Mol
dova
28
Thai
land
55
Col
ombi
a 43
Icel
and
1Tr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
o 14
Rom
ania
20
Isra
el 6
Bul
garia
13
Gre
ece
13R
ussi
a 5
Uru
guay
39
Chi
le 2
7La
tvia
25
Lith
uani
a 12
Slov
ak R
epub
lic 8
Italy
15
Nor
way
1Sp
ain
31H
unga
ry 1
6C
roat
ia 1
0D
enm
ark
3O
ECD
ave
rage
12
Swed
en 3
Mal
ta 1
3U
nite
d St
ates
11
Mac
ao (C
hina
) 22
Irel
and
5A
ustri
a 5
Portu
gal 2
8Lu
xem
bour
g 14
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na) 2
6C
zech
Rep
ublic
9Po
land
16
Aus
tralia
4U
nite
d K
ingd
om 5
Can
ada
2Fr
ance
9K
orea
6N
ew Z
eala
nd 5
Switz
erla
nd 8
Net
herla
nds 4
Slov
enia
5B
elgi
um 7
Finl
and
2Es
toni
a 5
Vie
t Nam
76
Ger
man
y 7
Japa
n 8
Chi
nese
Tai
pei 1
2B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) 52
Sing
apor
e 11
Scor
e po
ints
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
Percentage of resilient studentsFigure I.6.10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Vie
t Nam
Mac
ao (C
hina
)H
ong
Kon
g (C
hina
)Si
ngap
ore
Japa
nEs
toni
aC
hine
se T
aipe
iB
-S-J
-G (C
hina
)Fi
nlan
dK
orea
Spai
nC
anad
aPo
rtuga
lU
nite
d K
ingd
omLa
tvia
Slov
enia
Pola
ndG
erm
any
Aus
tralia
Uni
ted
Stat
esN
ethe
rland
sN
ew Z
eala
ndIr
elan
dO
ECD
ave
rage
Switz
erla
ndD
enm
ark
Bel
gium
Fran
ceIta
lyN
orw
ayA
ustri
aR
ussi
aC
zech
Rep
ublic
Swed
enC
roat
iaLi
thua
nia
Turk
eyM
alta
Luxe
mbo
urg
Hun
gary
Thai
land
Gre
ece
Slov
ak R
epub
licIc
elan
dIs
rael
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)C
hile
Uru
guay
Bul
garia
Mol
dova
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Mex
ico
Col
ombi
aR
oman
iaIn
done
sia
Cos
ta R
ica
Bra
zil
Mon
tene
gro
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
sJo
rdan
Geo
rgia
Alg
eria
Leba
non
Qat
arTu
nisi
aFY
RO
MPe
ruK
osov
oD
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
%
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
Excellenceandbaselineperformance
The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspectiveFigure I.2.18
United States (8.5%); 300k
B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k
Japan (15.3%); 174k
Germany (10.6%); 79kViet 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%
Scienceandcareers
Expectations of a science careerby gender
Figure I.3.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40%
United States OECD average
Science-related technicians or associate professionals2
Information andcommunication technology
(ICT) professionals
Health professionals
Science and engineeringprofessionals
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Students expecting a career in scienceFigure I.3.2
05
101520253035404550
Dom
inic
an R
ep.
12
Cos
ta R
ica
11
Jord
an
6U
nite
d A
rab
Em.
11
Mex
ico
6
Col
ombi
a
8Le
bano
n 1
5B
razi
l 1
9Pe
ru
7Q
atar
19
Uni
ted
Stat
es
13C
hile
18
Tuni
sia
19
Can
ada
21
Slov
enia
16
Turk
ey
6A
ustra
lia
15U
nite
d K
ingd
om
17M
alay
sia
4
Kaz
akhs
tan
14
Spai
n 1
1N
orw
ay
21U
rugu
ay
17Si
ngap
ore
14
Trin
idad
and
T.
13
Isra
el
25C
AB
A (A
rg.)
19
Portu
gal
18
Bul
garia
25
Irel
and
13
Kos
ovo
7
Alg
eria
12
Mal
ta
11G
reec
e 1
2N
ew Z
eala
nd
24A
lban
ia
29Es
toni
a 1
5O
ECD
ave
rage
19
Bel
gium
16
Cro
atia
17
FYR
OM
20
Lith
uani
a 2
1Ic
elan
d 2
2R
ussi
a 1
9H
KG
(Chi
na)
20
Rom
ania
20
Italy
17
Aus
tria
23
Mol
dova
7
Latv
ia
19M
onte
negr
o 1
8Fr
ance
21
Luxe
mbo
urg
18
Pola
nd
13M
acao
(Chi
na)
10
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
21
Swed
en
21Th
aila
nd
27V
iet N
am
13Sw
itzer
land
22
Kor
ea
7H
unga
ry
22Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
24
Japa
n 1
8Fi
nlan
d 2
4G
eorg
ia
27C
zech
Rep
ublic
22
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
31
Net
herla
nds
19
Ger
man
y 3
3In
done
sia
19
Den
mar
k 4
8
% Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30
Science-related technicians and associate professionalsInformation and communication technology professionalsHealth professionalsScience and engineering professionals
%ofstude
ntsw
ithvagueorm
issing
expe
ctations
0
10
20
30
40
50
300 400 500 600 700
Perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s exp
ectin
g a
care
er in
sc
ienc
e
Score points in science
Low enjoyment of scienceModerate enjoyment of scienceHigh enjoyment of science
Students expecting a career in scienceby performance and enjoyment of learning
Figure I.3.17
L
K
J
Students’ enjoyment of learning scienceFigure I.3.9
Percentage of students who reported that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in <broad science>
I am interested in learning about <broad science>
I generally have fun when I am learning <broad science> topics
I am happy working on <broad science> topics
I like reading about <broad science>
%
OECD average United States
SingaporeCanadaSloveniaAustralia
UnitedKingdomIrelandPortugal
ChineseTaipeiHongKong(China)
NewZealandDenmark
JapanEstoniaFinland
Macao(China)VietNam
B-S-J-G(China)Korea
GermanyNetherlandsSwitzerlandBelgiumPoland
SwedenLithuaniaCroatiaIcelandGeorgiaMalta
UnitedStatesSpainIsrael
UnitedArabEmirates
BrazilBulgariaChile
ColombiaCostaRica
DominicanRepublicJordanKosovo
LebanonMexicoPeruQatar
TrinidadandTobagoTunisiaTurkeyUruguay
Above-averagescienceperformance
Strongerthanaverageepistemicbeliefs
Above-averagepercentageofstudentsexpectingtoworkinascience-relatedoccupation
Norway
Mul
tiple
out
com
es
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instructionalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incentivestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instructionalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incentivestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
Acommitmenttoeducationandthebeliefthatcompetenciescanbelearnedandthereforeallchildrencanachievel Universaleducationalstandardsand
personalizationastheapproachtoengagewithdiversity…
… asopposedtoabeliefthatstudentshavedifferentdestinationstobemetwithdifferentexpectations,andselection/stratificationastheapproachtoheterogeneity
l Cleararticulationwhoisresponsibleforensuringstudentsuccessandtowhom
Horizontal stratification: ability groupingFigure II.5.8
0102030405060708090
100
Mol
dova
Geo
rgia
Bra
zil
Gre
ece
Portu
gal
Italy
Uru
guay
Nor
way
Aus
tria
Latv
iaSw
eden
Icel
and
Cro
atia
Fran
cePe
ruD
enm
ark
Bul
garia
Chi
leC
hine
se T
aipe
iB
elgi
umR
ussi
aC
zech
Rep
ublic
Ger
man
yTu
rkey
Leba
non
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Slov
enia
Hun
gary
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Dom
inic
an R
epub
licC
olom
bia
Pola
ndEs
toni
aIn
done
sia
Spai
nFY
RO
MU
nite
d A
rab
Emira
tes
Cos
ta R
ica
Alb
ania
Kos
ovo
OEC
D a
vera
geR
oman
iaM
exic
oM
onte
negr
oJo
rdan
Lith
uani
aM
acao
(Chi
na)
Finl
and
Japa
nK
orea
Tuni
sia
Switz
erla
ndQ
atar
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Alg
eria
Net
herla
nds
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
taTh
aila
ndU
nite
d St
ates
Vie
t Nam
Can
ada
Aus
tralia
New
Zea
land
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Sing
apor
eIr
elan
dIs
rael
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
%
Percentage of students in schools where students are grouped by ability into different classes:
One form of grouping for all subjects One form of grouping for some subjects No ability grouping for any subject
CABA(Argentina)
CostaRica
Sweden
Bulgaria Romania
VietNam
Uruguay
UnitedStates
Norway
Chile
Hungary
B-S-J-G(China)
Turkey
Mexico
Portugal
Iceland
Korea
Albania
Japan
TrinidadandTobago
UAEAlgeria Ireland
Indonesia
NewZealand
Colombia
Peru
Macao(China) Spain
Switzerland
Lebanon
Netherlands
SlovakRepublic
UK
Slovenia
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
LatviaR²=0.20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Socio-econ
omicinclusionacrosssc
hools
Academicinclusionacrossschools(%)
OECDaverage
OEC
Daverage
Academic and social inclusion across schoolsFigure II.5.12
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instructionalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incentivestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
Investingresourceswheretheycanmakemostofadifferencel Alignmentofresourceswithkeychallenges
(e.g.attractingthemosttalentedteacherstothemostchallengingclassrooms)
l Effectivespendingchoicesthatprioritise highqualityteachersoversmallerclasses
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
SwitzerlandNorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
IcelandDenmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
JapanSlovenia
AustraliaGermany
IrelandFranceItaly
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea Spain
PolandIsrael
Estonia
Czech Rep.
LatviaSlovak Rep.
Russia
CroatiaLithuania
HungaryCosta Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
UruguayBulgaria
Mexico
Thailand MontenegroColombia
Dominican Republic
Peru
Georgia
11.7, 411
R² = 0.01
R² = 0.41
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scie
nce
perf
orm
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
Luxembourg
Chile
Australia
TurkeyMexico
Portugal
Iceland
Japan
Greece
NewZealand
Spain Latvia
Estonia
SlovakRepublic
Canada UnitedKingdom
Finland
R² = 0.31
350
400
450
500
550
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
PISA
sci
ence
sco
re
Equity in resource allocation
Principals in disadvantaged schools more concerned about the material resources
Principals in advantagedschools more
concerned about the material resources
OECD average
OEC
D
aver
age
Equity in allocation of material and human resourcesBased on Figure II.6.4
Variation in science performance between and within schoolsFigure I.6.11
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Net
herla
nds
114
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
119
Bul
garia
11
5H
unga
ry
104
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
98
Bel
gium
11
2Sl
oven
ia
101
Ger
man
y 1
10Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
10
9M
alta
15
4U
nite
d A
rab
Emira
tes
110
Aus
tria
106
Isra
el
126
Leba
non
91
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
101
Qat
ar
109
Japa
n 9
7Sw
itzer
land
11
0Si
ngap
ore
120
Italy
93
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
111
Luxe
mbo
urg
112
Turk
ey
70B
razi
l 8
9C
roat
ia
89G
reec
e 9
4C
hile
83
Lith
uani
a 9
2O
ECD
ave
rage
10
0U
rugu
ay
84C
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
82
Rom
ania
70
Vie
t Nam
65
Kor
ea
101
Aus
tralia
11
7U
nite
d K
ingd
om
111
Peru
66
Col
ombi
a 7
2Th
aila
nd
69H
ong
Kon
g (C
hina
) 7
2FY
RO
M
80Po
rtuga
l 9
4D
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
59
Indo
nesi
a 5
2G
eorg
ia
92Jo
rdan
79
New
Zea
land
12
1U
nite
d St
ates
10
8M
onte
negr
o 8
1Tu
nisi
a 4
7Sw
eden
11
7M
exic
o 5
7A
lban
ia
69K
osov
o 5
7M
acao
(Chi
na)
74
Alg
eria
54
Esto
nia
88
Mol
dova
83
Cos
ta R
ica
55
Rus
sia
76
Can
ada
95
Pola
nd
92D
enm
ark
91
Latv
ia
75Ir
elan
d 8
8Sp
ain
86
Nor
way
10
3Fi
nlan
d 1
03Ic
elan
d 9
3
Between-school variation Within-school variation
Total variation as a proportion of the OECD
average
OECD average 69%
OECD average 30%
%
Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)M
exic
oPe
ruM
acao
(Chi
na)
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
sLe
bano
nJo
rdan
Col
ombi
aB
razi
lIn
done
sia
Turk
eySp
ain
Dom
inic
an R
epub
licG
eorg
iaU
rugu
ayTh
aila
ndB
-S-J
-G (C
hina
)A
ustra
liaJa
pan
Chi
leLu
xem
bour
gR
ussi
aPo
rtuga
lM
alta
Italy
New
Zea
land
Cro
atia
Irel
and
Alg
eria
Nor
way
Isra
elD
enm
ark
Swed
enU
nite
d St
ates
Mol
dova
Bel
gium
Slov
enia
OEC
D a
vera
geH
unga
ryC
hine
se T
aipe
iV
iet N
amC
zech
Rep
ublic
Sing
apor
eTu
nisi
aG
reec
eTr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
oC
anad
aR
oman
iaQ
atar
Mon
tene
gro
Kos
ovo
Net
herla
nds
Kor
eaFi
nlan
dSw
itzer
land
Ger
man
yH
ong
Kon
g (C
hina
)A
ustri
aFY
RO
MPo
land
Alb
ania
Bul
garia
Slov
ak R
epub
licLi
thua
nia
Esto
nia
Icel
and
Cos
ta R
ica
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Latv
ia
Mea
n in
dex
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
adva
ntag
ed a
nd
disa
dvan
tage
d sc
hool
s
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
Integratingimmigrants
Student performance in scienceby immigrant background
Figure I.7.4
350
400
450
500
550
600
Gre
ece
Cos
ta R
ica
Jord
an
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)
Isra
el
Swed
en
Fran
ce
Slov
enia
Aus
tria
Ger
man
y
Net
herla
nds
Den
mar
k
Italy
Nor
way
Bel
gium
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Spai
n
Cro
atia
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Luxe
mbo
urg
Switz
erla
nd
Qat
ar
Portu
gal
Rus
sia
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
s
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Irel
and
Aus
tralia
Esto
nia
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
New
Zea
land
Can
ada
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
Sing
apor
e
Score points Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students
Percentage of immigrant students and education systems' average performance in science
OECD average
CABA (Argentina)
Costa Rica
Sweden
Jordan
LuxembourgUnited States
Denmark
Italy
Australia
Portugal
RussiaHong Kong (China)
QatarBelgium
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
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Percentage of immigrant students
Figure I.7.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
Esto
nia
Sing
apor
e
Spai
n
Portu
gal
Can
ada
Switz
erla
nd
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ger
man
y
Slov
enia
Aus
tralia
Net
herla
nds
New
Zea
land
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Den
mar
k
Nor
way
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Irel
and
Swed
en
Fran
ce
Italy
Rus
sia
Cro
atia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Gre
ece
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)
Isra
el
Cos
ta R
ica
Jord
an
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
s
Qat
ar
% Non-immigrant students Immigrant students
Percentage of resilient studentsby immigrant background
Figure I.7.8
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 taking socio-economic status into account
Startingstrong
0
1
2
3
4
5
Swed
enEstonia
Russia
Latvia
Bulgaria
Iceland
Norway
Hungary
Denm
ark
Finland
Singapore
Israel
Belgium
HongKon
g(China)
Spain
SlovakRep
ublic
Uruguay
France
Macao(C
hina)
Brazil
B-S-J-G
(China)
Japan
Germ
any
CzechRe
public
Lithuania
Sloven
iaThailand
Austria
Croatia
Italy
ChineseTaipei
OEC
Daverage
Poland
Peru
Korea
Mexico
Luxembo
urg
Greece
Mon
tene
gro
DominicanRep
ublic
New
Zealand
Unite
dKingdo
mUn
itedStates
Switzerland
CostaRica
Qatar
Unite
dArabEmira
tes
Colombia
Australia
Canada
Chile
Ireland
Tunisia
Portugal
Turkey
Years
Disadvantagedschools Advantagedschools
Numberofyearsinpre-primaryeducationamongstudentsattendingsocio-economically…
Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile
Table II.6.51
OECD average
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instructionalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incentivestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
❒ Capacityatthepointofdeliveryl Attracting,developingandretaininghighquality
teachersandschoolleadersandaworkorganisation inwhichtheycanusetheirpotential
l Instructionalleadershipandhumanresourcemanagementinschools
l Keepingteachinganattractiveprofessionl System-widecareerdevelopment…
Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
JordanViet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J(China) Turkey
Georgia
ChineseTaipei
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
Stud
ent-
teac
her
ratio
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes
OECD average
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instructionalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incentivestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
❒ Clearambitiousgoalsthataresharedacrossthesystemandalignedwithhighstakesgatewaysandinstructionalsystems
l Wellestablisheddeliverychainthroughwhichcurriculargoalstranslateintoinstructionalsystems,instructionalpracticesandstudentlearning(intended,implementedandachieved)
l Highlevelofmetacognitivecontentofinstruction
The‘productivity’puzzle
Makinglearningtimeproductivesothatstudentscanbuildtheiracademic,socialandemotional
skillsinabalancedway
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Macao(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
PolandUnited States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
TurkeyMontenegroPeru
QatarThailand
UnitedArab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PISA
scie
nce
scor
e
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECDaverage
OECD average
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finl
and
Ger
man
ySw
itzer
land
Japa
nEs
toni
aSw
eden
Net
herla
nds
New
Zea
land
Aus
tralia
Cze
ch R
epub
licM
acao
(Chi
na)
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Can
ada
Bel
gium
Fran
ceN
orw
aySl
oven
iaIc
elan
dLu
xem
bour
gIr
elan
dLa
tvia
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
OEC
D a
vera
geC
hine
se T
aipe
iA
ustri
aPo
rtuga
lU
rugu
ayLi
thua
nia
Sing
apor
eD
enm
ark
Hun
gary
Pola
ndSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Spai
nC
roat
iaU
nite
d St
ates
Isra
elB
ulga
riaK
orea
Rus
sia
Italy
Gre
ece
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Col
ombi
aC
hile
Mex
ico
Bra
zil
Cos
ta R
ica
Turk
eyM
onte
negr
oPe
ruQ
atar
Thai
land
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
sTu
nisi
aD
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
Scor
e po
ints
in sc
ienc
e pe
r hou
r of t
otal
lear
ning
tim
e
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
Effectiveteaching
Awell-structured,clearandinformativelessononatopicincludingteachers’explanations,classroomdebatesandstudents’questionspays
off,asdoesadaptiveinstructionInquiry-basedscienceinstruction(e.g.experimentationandhands-onactivities)tendstorelatenegativelytoperformancebutpositivelyto
studentengagementandcareerexpectations
Balancingcurricula
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instructionalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incentivestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
Governance,incentives,accountability,knowledgemanagementl Alignedincentivestructures
For studentsl Howgatewaysaffectthestrength,direction,clarityandnatureoftheincentives
operatingonstudentsateachstageoftheireducationl Degreetowhichstudentshaveincentivestotaketoughcoursesandstudyhardl Opportunitycostsforstayinginschoolandperformingwell
Forteachersl Makeinnovationsinpedagogyand/ororganisationl Improvetheirownperformance
andtheperformanceoftheircolleaguesl Pursueprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities
thatleadtostrongerpedagogicalpractices
l Abalancebetweenverticalandlateralaccountabilityl Effectiveinstrumentstomanageandshareknowledgeandspread
innovation– communicationwithinthesystemandwithstakeholdersaroundit
l Acapablecentrewithauthorityandlegitimacytoact
Governance
AcrosstheOECD,70%ofstudentsattendschoolswhoseprincipalshaveconsiderableresponsibilityforhiringteachers,andinhalfthecasesalsoover
budgetallocationswithintheschool
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mac
ao (C
hina
)C
zech
Rep
ublic
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Lith
uani
aN
ethe
rland
sTh
aila
ndSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Esto
nia
Swed
enN
ew Z
eala
ndLa
tvia
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Den
mar
kIn
done
sia
Icel
and
Rus
sia
Bul
garia
Uni
ted
Stat
esC
hile
Pola
ndSl
oven
iaG
eorg
iaA
ustra
liaIs
rael
Irel
and
Finl
and
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
Sing
apor
eJa
pan
Leba
non
Nor
way
FYR
OM
OEC
D a
vera
geM
oldo
vaSw
itzer
land
Bel
gium
Rom
ania
Luxe
mbo
urg
Col
ombi
aK
orea
Can
ada
Peru
Cro
atia
Qat
arH
unga
ryC
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
Ger
man
yPo
rtuga
lTr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
oU
nite
d A
rab
Emira
tes
Fran
ceA
ustri
aM
onte
negr
oSp
ain
Italy
Mal
taC
osta
Ric
aB
-S-J
-G (C
hina
)B
razi
lD
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
Vie
t Nam
Mex
ico
Kos
ovo
Alg
eria
Uru
guay
Jord
anTu
nisi
aTu
rkey
Gre
ece
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
%Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Index of school autonomy (%)
Index of school autonomyby schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.7
Disadvantaged schools have more school autonomy
Advantaged schools have more school autonomy
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
sC
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
Mal
taLe
bano
nU
rugu
ayD
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
Jord
anM
exic
oQ
atar
Spai
nB
razi
lPe
ruC
olom
bia
Chi
leSi
ngap
ore
Aus
tralia
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Japa
nV
iet N
amG
reec
eIs
rael
Geo
rgia
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Rus
sia
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Irel
and
Kos
ovo
Den
mar
kFY
RO
MM
onte
negr
oFr
ance
Portu
gal
Aus
tria
Switz
erla
ndSw
eden
OEC
D a
vera
geU
nite
d St
ates
Hun
gary
Bel
gium
Net
herla
nds
Mac
ao (C
hina
)K
orea
Finl
and
Slov
enia
Mol
dova
Latv
iaTh
aila
ndSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Alg
eria
Italy
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ger
man
yTu
nisi
aC
anad
aLu
xem
bour
gTu
rkey
Icel
and
Indo
nesi
aLi
thua
nia
Cze
ch R
epub
licEs
toni
aN
ew Z
eala
ndR
oman
iaB
ulga
riaC
roat
iaC
hine
se T
aipe
iPo
land
Nor
way
Cos
ta R
ica
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
%Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Index of school autonomy (%)
Index of school autonomyby schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.7
Advantaged schools have more school autonomy
Disadvantaged schools have more school autonomy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Geo
rgia
Chi
le
Spai
n
Portu
gal
Mex
ico
Cro
atia
Mal
ta
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
Ger
man
y
Kor
ea
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Italy
Luxe
mbo
urg
Bel
gium
(Fle
mis
h)
Irel
and
Fran
ce
Scot
land
(UK
)
Diff
eren
cebe
twee
nad
vant
aged
and
disa
dvan
tage
dsc
hool
s
Number ofactivities
Mean index difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Index of parental involvement in school-related activities (number of activities)
Parental involvement in school-related activitiesby schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.3.15
Parents of students in advantaged schools are less involved in school-related activities
Parents of students in advantaged schools are more involved in school-related
activities
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
ons p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
ons p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
ons p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
ons p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
ons p
olic
ies
-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 scienceperformance
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
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
on p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
on p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
on p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
on p
olic
ies
Res
ourc
es
Cur
ricul
um
Dis
cipl
inar
y po
licie
s
Ass
essm
ent p
olic
ies
Adm
issi
on p
olic
ies-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Cor
rela
tion
coef
ficie
nt w
ith sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Below OECD average
Above OECD average
Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance and science performanceby tracking achievement data over time
Figure II.4.12
School principal Teachers School governing board
Local or regional education authority
National education authority
Students score higher in science when the principal holds more responsibility for school admission
policies, but only in countries where achievement data are tracked by an authority more extensively
than the OECD average
Education systems where the percentage of students whose achievement data are tracked over time by an
administrative authority is:
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
HongKong(China)
Italy
Macao(C
hina)
France
Luxembourg
Mexico
Portugal
Germ
any
Spain
OECD
average
Ireland
Malta
Korea
Georgia
Croatia
Chile
Dominica
nRep.
Scotland(U
K)
Afteraccountingforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofileBeforeaccountingforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofile
Score-pointdifferenceinsciencewhenparentsreportedthatthereisatleastoneotherschoolcompetinginthearea
School competition and science performanceTable II.4.14
Publicandprivateschools
AcrossOECDcountries,84%ofstudentsattendpublicschools,12%government-dependentprivateschoolsand4%independentprivateschools
PISAgenerallyobservesnosystematicnetperformancedifferences
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Turk
eySi
ngap
ore
Vie
t Nam
Japa
nTu
nisi
aIta
lyC
hine
se T
aipe
iTh
aila
ndG
reec
eSw
itzer
land
Cze
ch R
epub
licU
nite
d St
ates
Esto
nia
Uru
guay
Fran
ceA
ustri
aC
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
Kos
ovo
Mex
ico
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Indo
nesi
aLu
xem
bour
gSw
eden
Hun
gary
Mal
taD
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
Latv
iaO
ECD
ave
rage
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Portu
gal
Slov
enia
Spai
nU
nite
d K
ingd
omSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Nor
way
Aus
tralia
Cro
atia
Den
mar
kPe
ruJo
rdan
Cos
ta R
ica
Col
ombi
aC
hile
Net
herla
nds
Kor
eaN
ew Z
eala
ndC
anad
aLi
thua
nia
Irel
and
Geo
rgia
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
FYR
OM
Ger
man
yFi
nlan
dLe
bano
nB
elgi
umPo
land
Bra
zil
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
sQ
atar
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Science performance in public and private schoolsFigure II.4.14
Students in private schools perform better
Students in public schools perform better
Low expenses as a reason for choosing schoolby schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.17
01020304050607080
-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Geo
rgia
Mex
ico
Portu
gal
Chi
le
Spai
n
Mal
ta
Kor
ea
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Irel
and
Fran
ce
Cro
atia
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
Scot
land
(UK
)
Italy
Ger
man
y
Bel
gium
(Fle
mm
ish)
%
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Percentage of parents who consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important"
Low expenses are more important for parents whose children attend
disadvantaged schools
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Luxe
mbo
urg
Bel
gium
(Fle
mm
ish)
Portu
gal
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Mal
ta
Italy
Ger
man
y
Irel
and
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Geo
rgia
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
Cro
atia
Chi
le
Spai
n
Mex
ico
Kor
ea
Scot
land
(UK
)
Fran
ce
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
School low expenses as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance
Figure II.4.17
Students whose parents consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important perform
lower
School reputation as a reason for choosing schoolby schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.18
0102030405060708090100
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mal
ta
Irel
and
Scot
land
(UK
)
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Portu
gal
Geo
rgia
Bel
gium
(Fle
mm
ish)
Spai
n
Chi
le
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Fran
ce
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mex
ico
Kor
ea
Ger
man
y
Italy
Cro
atia
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
%
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Percentage of parents who consider school reputation "important" or "very important"
School reputation is more important forparents whose children attend advantaged
schools
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Geo
rgia
Kor
ea
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
Mex
ico
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Chi
le
Portu
gal
Mal
ta
Italy
Cro
atia
Spai
n
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Ger
man
y
Luxe
mbo
urg
Irel
and
Fran
ce
Bel
gium
(Fle
mm
ish)
Scot
land
(UK
)
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
School reputation as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance
Figure II.4.18
Students whose parents consider school reputation "important" or "very important“ perform better
Studentassessmentsandteacherappraisalsarewidelyused
Infiveoutofsixschoolsystems,studentsareassessedatleastonceayearwithmandatorystandardisedtests
81%ofstudentsareinschoolswheretestsandprincipalorseniorstaffobservationsoflessensareusedtomonitorteacherpractice
Frequency of mandatory standardised tests at schoolFigure II.4.21
0102030405060708090
100
Swed
enU
nite
d K
ingd
omLa
tvia
Irel
and
Rus
sia
Mal
taIc
elan
dM
oldo
vaA
lger
iaC
hile
Sing
apor
ePo
land
FYR
OM
Italy
Alb
ania
Luxe
mbo
urg
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Indo
nesi
aQ
atar
Uni
ted
Stat
esJo
rdan
Den
mar
kTh
aila
ndTu
nisi
aC
hine
se T
aipe
iC
anad
aC
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
Kos
ovo
Esto
nia
Rom
ania
Mac
ao (C
hina
)U
nite
d A
rab
Emira
tes
Isra
elLe
bano
nFi
nlan
dO
ECD
ave
rage
Gre
ece
Col
ombi
aH
unga
ryG
eorg
iaSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Nor
way
Kor
eaFr
ance
Bul
garia
Peru
Bra
zil
Aus
tria
Switz
erla
ndTu
rkey
Mex
ico
Vie
t Nam
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Portu
gal
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Spai
nC
roat
iaSl
oven
iaLi
thua
nia
Bel
gium
Ger
man
yU
rugu
ayM
onte
negr
oD
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
Cos
ta R
ica
%
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
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Lowimpact on outcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhanging fruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instructionalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incentivestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
❒ Coherenceofpoliciesandpracticesl Alignmentofpolicies
acrossallaspectsofthesysteml Coherenceofpolicies
oversustainedperiodsoftimel Consistencyofimplementationl Fidelityofimplementation
(withoutexcessivecontrol)
Averageschool systems High performersinPISA
Some studentslearnathighlevels à
All studentslearnathighlevels
Uniformity à Embracingdiversity
Curriculum-centred à Learner-centred
Learningaplace à Learninganactivity
Prescription à Informedprofession
Deliveredwisdom à User-generatedwisdom
Provision à Outcomes
Findoutmoreaboutourworkatwww.oecd.org/pisa– Allpublications– Thecompletemicro-leveldatabase
Email:[email protected]:SchleicherOECDWechat:AndreasSchleicher
Thank you
![2015 Launch of Excellence & Equity [xe] project](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/55d11340bb61eb66708b46b0/2015-launch-of-excellence-equity-xe-project.jpg)
