1

Education Research Brief

Resource Gaps Between Advantaged & Disadvantaged Schools Among the Largest in the World

Trevor Cobbold

February 2017

Save Our Schools

http://www.saveourschools.com.au https://twitter.com/SOSAust saveourschools690@gmail.com

2

Overview Disadvantaged students in Australia are being denied equal opportunities to learn because they have less access to qualified teachers and material resources than advantaged students. The gaps in access to education resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in Australia are among the largest in the world and the OECD. Data from PISA 2015 published in a supplementary report by the OECD show that disadvantaged schools in Australia experience more teacher shortages, higher teacher-student ratios and more shortages or inadequacy of material educational resources than advantaged schools [OECD 2016a]. Advantaged schools are much better equipped to provide opportunities to learn. The extent of the gaps is both startling and shocking:

Australia has the largest gap in teacher shortages between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in the OECD and the 4th largest of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015; only Buenos Aires, Peru and the United Arab Emirates have a larger gap of all the countries participating in PISA;

Inequity in the allocation of educational staff between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in Australia is the highest in the OECD according to the PISA measure of equity in the allocation of staff and the 3rd highest of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015. Inequity was greater in only Peru and Buenos Aires;

Australian is one of only seven OECD countries where disadvantaged schools have a higher student-teacher ratio than advantaged schools and the gap in Australia is the equal 2nd largest. Australia’s gap is the equal 12th highest of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015;

Australia has the 4th largest gap in the shortage or inadequacy of educational material and physical infrastructure between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in the OECD, and is only exceeded in Mexico, Turkey and Spain. The Australian gap is the 18th largest out of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015;

Inequity in the allocation of material resources in Australia is the 5th highest in the OECD according to the PISA measure of equity in resource allocation and the 15th highest of the 70 participating countries/regions.

Private schools are better equipped in terms of human and material resources than public schools. Public schools have greater shortages in teaching and material resources and higher student-teacher ratios than private schools. Provincial and rural schools also have greater teaching shortages than city schools.

Australia has the largest gap in teacher shortages between town and city schools in the OECD and one of the largest of all countries/regions participating in PISA;

The gap in the shortage of teachers between rural and city schools in Australia is the 5th largest in the OECD.

A feature of the latest PISA results is continuing high inequity in education outcomes in Australia. High proportions of disadvantaged students don’t achieve international minimum standards in reading, mathematics and science and they are three or more years of learning behind advantaged students. High proportions of students in provincial and remote area schools are also below minimum standards and are 2⅟2-3 years behind advantaged students.1

1 The terminology used to classify schools by geographic location is different between the OECD report and the Australian national report on the PISA results. The OECD report classifies schools as being city, town or rural

3

These inequities are not new. They are a longstanding feature of Australia’s PISA, and of other national and international test results. In fact, the percentage of disadvantaged students and students in provincial and remote area schools below international minimum standards has increased significantly in the last 10 years. The OECD report shows that the distribution of human and material resources between disadvantaged and advantaged schools matters for student achievement in education systems. It found that: “In countries and economies where more resources are allocated to disadvantaged schools than advantaged schools, overall student performance in science is somewhat higher” [OECD 2016a: 189]. Australia must provide more resources for disadvantaged schools if the large achievement gaps are to be reduced. As the OECD report states:

Achieving equity in education means ensuring that students’ socio-economic status has little to do with learning outcomes. Learning should not be hindered by whether a child comes from a poor family, has an immigrant background, is raised by a single parent or has limited resources at home, such as no computer or no quiet room for studying. Successful education systems understand this and have found ways to allocate resources so as to level the playing field for students who lack the material and human resources that students in advantaged families enjoy. When more students learn, the whole system benefits. This is an important message revealed by PISA results: in countries and economies where more resources are allocated to disadvantaged schools, overall student performance in science is somewhat higher. [OECD 2016a: 233]

A similar report on PISA 2012 results showed that the extent and quality of human and material resources in secondary schools influences student achievement. It found that: “High-performing countries tend to allocate resources more equitably across socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools” [OECD 2013: 17]. Australia is clearly still failing in this. Many academic studies show that better targeting of teaching and material resources to disadvantaged schools would improve the results of disadvantaged students. Improving the results of low SES students to match the current Australian averages would lift Australia into the top 10 countries in the world in reading and science and substantially improve Australia’s position in mathematics. The Gonski funding model was designed to redress the inequity in resources between disadvantaged and advantaged schools. Its sabotage by the Federal Coalition will mean continuing disadvantage and social inequity in education in Australia. The forthcoming meeting of the national education ministers’ council must ensure future funding arrangements that support increased resources for disadvantaged schools.

High inequity in student achievement The national PISA 2015 report shows that very high proportions of low socio-economic status (SES), Indigenous, provincial and remote area 15 year-old students are not achieving international minimum standards in reading, mathematics and science. About one-third of low SES students are below the reading, mathematics and science standards [see Chart 1 below]. Almost half of all Indigenous students are below the mathematics standard while 40

schools and the Australian report classifies schools as metropolitan, provincial and remote. The classifications seem to be similar.

4

per cent are below the reading standard and 42 per cent are below the science standard. About 30 per of remote area students and about 25 per cent of provincial students and students from a language background other than English (LBOTE) are below the standards. In contrast, only seven to nine per cent of high SES students are below the standards. Mean scores in reading, mathematics and science results for low SES, Indigenous, remote area students lag those of high SES students by about three or more years [Chart 2]. The achievement gap between high and low SES students in reading, mathematics and science is equivalent to about three years of learning. The gap between high SES and Indigenous students is even larger, being equivalent to about four years of learning. The high SES/remote area student gap is about three years of learning, the high SES/provincial gap is 2⅟2-3 years and that for high SES/LBOTE students is about 2-2⅟2 years.

Shortage of education staff Shortage of qualified teachers restricts effective learning. One-fifth of Australian students attend schools whose principals reported in PISA 2015 that a shortage of teaching staff hinders learning to some extent or a lot [OECD 2016a: Table II.6.14]. However, advantaged schools in Australia face fewer staff shortages than many other schools in Australia. The gaps in the shortage of teachers between disadvantaged and advantaged schools, town and city schools and rural and city schools are the largest in the OECD and among the largest of all countries/cities participating in PISA 2015.2 Australia has the largest gap in the shortage of teachers between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in the OECD and one of the largest of all 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015. The gap is very large compared to the average across the OECD and is much larger than in high performing countries such as Singapore, Japan, Estonia, Taiwan, Finland, Vietnam and Korea [Chart 3]. Only Buenos Aires, Peru and the United Arab Emirates have a larger gap than Australia. The OECD PISA 2015 report also constructed a measure of equity in the allocation of education staff amongst disadvantaged and advantaged schools based on principals’ concerns about the lack or inadequacy of human resources at school. This shows that inequity in the allocation of education staff in Australia is the highest in the OECD and much higher than in other high performing countries [Chart 4]. Many high performing countries such as Estonia, Finland, Singapore, Japan and Canada have very little inequity in the allocation of education staff. Inequity in Australia is the 3rd highest of 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015. Inequity was greater in only Peru and Buenos Aires. Australia also has the largest gap in the shortage of teachers between town and city schools in the OECD and one of the largest of all countries/regions participating in PISA.3 The shortage gap is very large compared to the average for the OECD [Chart 5]. Several high performing countries such as Korea, Estonia, Germany and Slovenia have a higher shortage of teachers in city schools rather than schools in towns. Only China, Cyprus, Dominican Republic and Jordan have a larger shortage gap between town and city schools than Australia. The gap in the shortage of teachers between rural and city schools in Australia is also one of the largest in the OECD [Chart 6]. Only the Slovak Republic, Chile, Canada and New Zealand have a larger gap. The Australian gap is the 12th largest of all countries/regions participating in PISA 2015.

2 The OECD constructed an index of shortages in education staff from principals’ responses to the PISA 2015 questionnaire. Differences in index scores reflect differences in the shortage of staff in schools. 3 A town is defined as having a population of 3,000 to 100,000 and a city is defined has having a population of over 100,000.

5

Public schools also have a greater shortage of teachers than private schools and the gap is larger than the average in OECD countries [Chart 7]. The gap is larger than in most high performing countries.

Student-teacher ratios Australian is one of only seven of 35 OECD countries where disadvantaged schools have a higher student-teacher ratio than advantaged schools and the gap in favour of advantaged schools in Australia is the equal 2nd largest in the OECD [Chart 8]. In Australia, the average student-teacher ratio in disadvantaged secondary schools is 13.1 compared to 12.4 in advantaged schools [OECD 2016, Table II.6.29]. In contrast, the average student-teacher ratio in disadvantaged secondary schools across the OECD is 12.1 compared to 13.5 for advantaged schools. Australia is one of only 18 countries/regions out of 70 participating in PISA 2015 where disadvantaged schools have a higher student-teacher ratio than advantaged schools and it is the equal 12th highest. In high performing countries, student-teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools are generally lower than in advantaged schools. Canada, Estonia, Finland, Japan and Korea all have lower student-teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools than in advantaged schools. For example, in Estonia the average ratio for disadvantaged schools is 8.8 and 13.6 in advantaged schools. In Japan, the respective ratios are 10.0 and 12.5 while in Finland they are 9.6 and 10.7. Student-teacher ratios in town and city schools are also higher than in advantaged schools. The ratio for town schools is 13.0 and 13.2 in city schools [Chart 9]. The ratio for rural schools is 12.1 which is similar to that in advantaged schools [Chart 10]. The student-teacher ratio in public schools is also higher than in private schools – 13.5 compared to 12.5 [Chart 11]. These ratios are similar to the OECD averages for public and private schools. The PISA 2015 study found only a weak relationship between student-teacher ratios and student achievement across OECD countries and in Australia. In Australia, this may be due to the fact that the variation in student-teacher ratios between schools is relatively small. Studies show that lower student-teacher ratios increase student achievement in disadvantaged schools [for example, Jackson et.al. 2016, Mathis 2016, Schanzenbach 2014]. Lower student-teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools allow for lower class sizes or allow teachers more time to prepare for lessons and take on other responsibilities such as mentoring students.

Shortage of educational material resources The OECD report found that students score lower in schools whose principals reported that the capacity to provide learning opportunities is hindered to a greater extent by a shortage or inadequacy of physical infrastructure and educational material resources, such as textbooks, science laboratories, information technology and libraries [OECD 2016a: 187].4 In Australia, only about 10 per cent of students are in schools where principals reported that a lack or inadequacy of educational materials hinders learning to some extent or a lot [OECD 2016: Table II.6.1]. However, 25 per cent of students are in schools where principals reported that inadequacy of inadequacy of physical infrastructure, such as school buildings, heating and cooling systems and teaching space hinder learning to some extent or a lot.

4 The OECD constructed an index of shortage in educational material resources from principals’ responses to the PISA 2015 questionnaire about the extent to which shortage or inadequacy in physical infrastructure and educational materials hinder learning. Differences in index scores reflect differences in the shortage of material resources in schools.

6

Australia is one of many countries where student learning in socio-economically disadvantaged schools is hindered by a lack or inadequacy of educational material and physical infrastructure to a greater extent than in advantaged schools. However, the gap in Australia is the 4th largest in the OECD, only exceeded in Mexico, Turkey and Spain [Chart 12]. It is much larger than in high performing countries such as Singapore, Canada, Estonia, Finland and Korea. The Australian gap is the 18th largest out of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015 The OECD PISA 2015 report also constructed a measure of equity in the allocation of education resources amongst disadvantaged and advantaged schools based on principals’ concerns about the lack or inadequacy of educational resources at school. This shows that inequity in the allocation of educational resources in Australia is the 5th highest in the OECD and much higher than in other high performing countries [Chart 13]. It is the 15th highest of the 70 participating countries/regions. Public schools also face much greater shortages or inadequacy in physical infrastructure and educational materials than private schools and the gap is similar to that between disadvantaged and advantaged schools [Chart 14]. The gap is much greater than in many other high performing countries such as Canada, Estonia, Japan, Korea and Singapore. Rural and town schools also face greater shortages or inadequacy of educational resources than city schools, but the gaps are less than between disadvantaged and advantaged schools [Charts 15 &16]. However, the gaps between rural and town schools and city schools are larger than the OECD averages.

Conclusion Achievement gaps are inextricably linked to gaps in the opportunity to learn. The opportunity to learn is affected by factors outside and within schools. Disadvantage is constantly reproduced in society through poverty, low incomes, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, poor health and other factors. Schools are in a constant battle against the reproduction of inequality and poverty in society. Their efforts must be supported by economic and social policies to reduce growing inequality and increasing poverty. But, it is critical that they are also provided with adequate human and material resources to ensure that disadvantaged students achieve at the levels of advantaged students. The allocation of teaching and educational material resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools matters. The OECD analysis of the PISA 2015 science results found that 31 per cent of the variation in science performance is explained by the degree of equity in the allocation of educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools [OECD 2016a: 189]. Evidence from another OECD report last year indicated that low-performing students appear to benefit the most when more resources are allocated to disadvantaged schools than advantaged schools (OECD 2016b). As the eminent US educationalist Linda Darling-Hammond concluded in a review of inequality and school resources:

Clearly, money well spent does make a difference. Equalizing access to resources creates the possibility that all students will receive what is their birthright: a genuine opportunity to learn. [Darling-Hammond 2013: 97]

Improving the results of disadvantaged students would not only increase their life chances, but would significantly lift Australia’s overall education performance. If the average results for students in the lowest SES quartile were lifted to the current national average scores recorded in PISA 2015, Australia would move into the top 10 countries in reading and science and significantly improve its position in mathematics.

7

In 2015, low SES students were well over one year of learning behind the Australian average in reading, mathematics and science (41 points behind in reading, 39 points behind in mathematics and 42 points behind in science). If the results of low SES students were lifted to the current Australian average, Australia would move from 16th to 9th in reading out of 70 countries and be statistically equivalent with Estonia, Japan and Korea. In science, Australia would move from 14th to 9th and be statistically similar to Canada, Hong Kong and Vietnam. In mathematics, Australia would move from 25th to about 15th and be statistically similar to Finland, Germany and Denmark. Lifting the results of low SES and other disadvantaged students requires better targeting of teaching and material resources to disadvantaged schools as many studies show. However, Governments in Australia and the federal and state/territory level have all failed to provide disadvantaged schools with the human and material resources necessary to reduce the large achievement gaps. The Gonski funding model was designed to redress the inequity in resources between disadvantaged and advantaged schools. Its sabotage by the Federal Coalition will mean continuing disadvantage and social inequity in education in Australia. It will also mean lower productivity and economic growth, and higher government expenditure on health, welfare and crime. The forthcoming meeting of the national education ministers’ council must ensure future funding arrangements that support increased resources for disadvantaged schools.

8

Charts on Disadvantage & Educational Resources

Source: Thomson et.al. 2016, Figures 5.2, 5.4 & 5.6.

Source: Derived from Thomson et.al. 2016, Figures 9.2, 10.2, 11.2 & 13.2. Note: One year of learning is equivalent to about 30 points on the PISA scale.

30

40

28

2426

7

35

49

33

2927

9

29

42

28

23

27

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Low SES Indigenous Remote Provincial LBOTE High SES

Chart 1: Percentage of Low Performing Students (Below PISA Level 2), Australia, 2015

Reading Mathematics Science

89

116

86

7164

86

114

81

68

54

91

122

86

68 71

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Low SES Indigenous Remote Area Provincial LBOTE

Chart 2: Achievement Gaps Between High SES & Other Student Groups, Australia, 2015

Reading Mathematics Science

9

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15. Note: Singapore is highlighted in this and the following charts because it is the top performing country in PISA 2015.

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.16 Note: The index of equity in the allocation of education staff is the percentage of the variation in the index of shortage of educational staff explained by the school PISA index of economic, social and cultural status of the school multiplied by a negative or positive sign, depending on the sign of the relationship.

1.06

0.34

0.16

-0.24-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Au

stra

liaSp

ain

USA

Turk

ey

Mex

ico

Swe

de

nN

ew

Ze

alan

dIs

rael

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

De

nm

ark

Ch

ileN

orw

ayLu

xem

bo

urg

Hu

nga

rySl

ova

k R

ep

ub

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Can

ada

UK

Po

rtu

gal

OEC

DSw

itze

rlan

dG

erm

any

Ital

yIr

elan

dB

elg

ium

Gre

ece

Sin

gap

ore

Jap

anSl

ove

nia

Fin

lan

dP

ola

nd

Ice

lan

dLa

tvia

Fran

ceEs

ton

iaA

ust

ria

Ko

rea

Chart 3: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Disadvantaged & Advantaged Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

-17.4

-3.8

-0.3

0.6

-20.0

-18.0

-16.0

-14.0

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

Au

stra

liaSp

ain

Turk

ey

Mex

ico

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Ch

ileSw

ed

en

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Luxe

mb

ou

rgU

SAP

ort

uga

lH

un

gary

OEC

DD

en

mar

kN

orw

ayG

ree

ceG

erm

any

Isra

el UK

Slo

ven

iaIr

elan

dSw

itze

rlan

dC

anad

aB

elg

ium

Jap

anSl

ova

k R

ep

ub

Fin

lan

dN

eth

erl

and

sIt

aly

Ice

lan

dSi

nga

po

reP

ola

nd

Latv

iaFr

ance

Esto

nia

Au

stri

aK

ore

a

Chart 4: Equity in the Allocation of Education Staff Between Advantaged and Disadvantaged Schools, OECD, PISA 2015 (%)

10

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15

0.42

0.06

-0.24-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Au

stra

lia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Turk

ey

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Mex

ico

Spai

n

Po

rtu

gal

No

rway

Ch

ile

Irel

and

Isra

el

Fin

lan

d

Ice

lan

d

Swe

de

n

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

Fran

ce

De

nm

ark

OEC

D

Ital

y

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Jap

an

Hu

nga

ry

Can

ada

Ko

rea

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Latv

ia

Esto

nia

Ge

rman

y

Swit

zerl

and

Slo

ven

ia

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Po

lan

d

UK

Gre

ece

USA

Chart 5: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Town & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

0.65

0.50

0.05

-0.79

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

Ch

ile

Can

ada

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Au

stra

lia

Isra

el

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Swe

de

n

No

rway

Po

rtu

gal

Latv

ia

Turk

ey

Au

stri

a

Esto

nia

Irel

and

Swit

zerl

and

De

nm

ark

OEC

D

Mex

ico

Po

lan

d

Fin

lan

d

Hu

nga

ry

USA

Ice

lan

d

UK

Ital

y

Spai

n

Slo

ven

ia

Gre

ece

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Be

lgiu

m

Chart 6: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Rural & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

11

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29

1.85

0.690.57

0.11

-0.28-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Gre

ece

Po

rtu

gal

Ital

y

Turk

ey

Mex

ico

Fin

lan

d

UK

Ch

ile

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Spai

n

Ge

rman

y

USA

Au

stra

lia

De

nm

ark

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Hu

nga

ry

No

rway

Can

ada

OEC

D

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Swe

de

n

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

Latv

ia

Swit

zerl

and

Sin

gap

ore

Au

stri

a

Ko

rea

Slo

ven

ia

Po

lan

d

Irel

and

Jap

an

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Esto

nia

Fran

ce

Chart 7: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Public & Private Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

3.5

0.7

-0.1

-1.4

-5.0-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Au

stri

aA

ust

ralia

Swit

zerl

and

Turk

ey

Isra

elC

zech

Re

pu

bIc

ela

nd

USA

Sin

gap

ore

Ge

rman

yC

hile

Slo

vak

Re

pu

bP

ola

nd

Luxe

mb

ou

rgSl

ove

nia

Fin

lan

dG

ree

ceP

ort

uga

lD

en

mar

kN

ew

Ze

alan

dM

exic

oO

ECD

UK

Hu

nga

ryFr

ance

No

rway

Irel

and

Can

ada

Swe

de

nJa

pan

Ko

rea

Latv

iaSp

ain

Be

lgiu

mEs

ton

iaIt

aly

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Chart 8: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Disadvantaged & Advantaged Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

12

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29.

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29.

3.2

-0.2-0.6

-2.8

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Isra

el

Be

lgiu

m UK

Ice

lan

d

Mex

ico

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Po

lan

d

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Swit

zerl

and

Ge

rman

y

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

Au

stra

lia

Turk

ey

Slo

ven

ia

De

nm

ark

OEC

D

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Ital

y

Can

ada

No

rway

Hu

nga

ry

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Gre

ece

Po

rtu

gal

Jap

an

Esto

nia

Au

stri

a

USA

Latv

ia

Swe

de

n

Irel

and

Ko

rea

Ch

ile

Spai

n

Chart 9: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Town & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

2.6

-1.1

-2.3

-10.0

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

Fran

ce

Au

stri

a

Isra

el

Turk

ey

Be

lgiu

m

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

UK

Po

lan

d

Hu

nga

ry

Ital

y

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

Au

stra

lia

Swe

de

n

Ice

lan

d

Ge

rman

y

Slo

ven

ia

Swit

zerl

and

Fin

lan

d

OEC

D

No

rway

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Irel

and

Po

rtu

gal

De

nm

ark

Can

ada

Gre

ece

Latv

ia

Esto

nia

USA

Mex

ico

Spai

n

Ch

ile

Chart 10: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Rural & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

13

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29.

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.

8.2

1.00.7 0.4

-4.5-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Mex

ico

UK

USA

Gre

ece

Swit

zerl

and

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Po

lan

dLa

tvia

Turk

ey

Slo

vak

Re

pu

bC

zech

Re

pu

bA

ust

ria

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Au

stra

liaO

ECD

No

rway

Sin

gap

ore

Be

lgiu

mIc

ela

nd

Isra

elFi

nla

nd

Ko

rea

Jap

anH

un

gary

Ital

yG

erm

any

Luxe

mb

ou

rgSw

ed

en

Can

ada

Slo

ven

iaP

ort

uga

lFr

ance

Irel

and

Ch

ileSp

ain

Chart 11: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Public & Private Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

1.7

0.6

0.3 0.2

-0.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Mex

ico

Turk

ey

Spai

nA

ust

ralia

Jap

anC

hile

Luxe

mb

ou

rgP

ort

uga

lIt

aly

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Irel

and

No

rway

Isra

elD

en

mar

kSw

ed

en

USA

Be

lgiu

mSl

ove

nia

OEC

DH

un

gary

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Sin

gap

ore

Gre

ece

Can

ada

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Ko

rea

Fin

lan

dSw

itze

rlan

dG

erm

any

Fran

ceA

ust

ria

Po

lan

dSl

ova

k R

ep

ub

Esto

nia

Ice

lan

dU

KLa

tvia

Chart 12: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Advantaged & Disadvantaged Schools, OECD,

PISA 2015

14

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.3.

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.

-26.6

-7.8

-3.3-1.4

4.1

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

Mex

ico

Ch

ileTu

rke

ySp

ain

Au

stra

liaJa

pan

Po

rtu

gal

Luxe

mb

ou

rgN

ew

Ze

alan

dSl

ove

nia

OEC

DB

elg

ium

No

rway

Irel

and

Swe

de

nG

ree

ceIt

aly

Sin

gap

ore

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Hu

nga

ryU

SAIs

rael

Can

ada

De

nm

ark

Ko

rea

Fran

ceG

erm

any

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Swit

zerl

and

Au

stri

aFi

nla

nd

Po

lan

dSl

ova

k R

ep

ub

UK

Esto

nia

Ice

lan

dLa

tvia

Chart 13: Equity in the Allocation of Educational Resources, OECD, PISA 2015 (%)

1.4

0.6

0.4

-0.2-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Gre

ece

Turk

ey

Mex

ico

Ital

y

Po

rtu

gal

Spai

n

Fin

lan

d

UK

Hu

nga

ry

Ch

ile

Slo

ven

ia

Au

stra

lia

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Ge

rman

y

Swe

de

n

OEC

D

Can

ada

Jap

an

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Esto

nia

Latv

ia

Ko

rea

De

nm

ark

No

rway

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Irel

and

Po

lan

d

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Swit

zerl

and

Au

stri

a

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

USA

Fran

ce

Sin

gap

ore

Chart 14: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Public & Private Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

15

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.

Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.

1.19

0.25

0.11

-0.57-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Mex

ico

Ch

ile

Irel

and

Turk

ey

UK

Gre

ece

Fran

ce

Spai

n

Po

rtu

gal

Au

stri

a

No

rway

Au

stra

lia

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Swe

de

n

Can

ada

OEC

D

Esto

nia

Ital

y

Isra

el

Swit

zerl

and

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

Fin

lan

d

Po

lan

d

Ice

lan

d

Slo

ven

ia

Ge

rman

y

Latv

ia

Be

lgiu

m

USA

De

nm

ark

Hu

nga

ry

Chart 15: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Rural & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

0.49

0.18

0.03

-0.34-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Mex

ico

No

rway

Irel

and

UK

Ital

y

Esto

nia

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

Turk

ey

Au

stra

lia

Spai

n

Gre

ece

Jap

an

Ch

ile

Swe

de

n

Isra

el

Fran

ce

Po

rtu

gal

OEC

D

Fin

lan

d

Au

stri

a

Slo

ven

ia

Hu

nga

ry

Ko

rea

Can

ada

Ne

w Z

eal

and

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

De

nm

ark

Ice

lan

d

Swit

zerl

and

Ne

the

rlan

ds

USA

Be

lgiu

m

Slo

vak

Re

pu

b

Latv

ia

Ge

rman

y

Po

lan

d

Chart 16: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Town & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015

16

References Darling-Hammond, Linda 2013, Inequality and school resources. In Carter, Prudence & Welner, Kevin G. (eds), Closing the Opportunity Gap, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 77-97. Jackson, C. Kirabo; Rucker, Johnson C. & Persico, Claudia 2016, The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (1): 157-218. http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/1/157 Mathis, William J. 2016, The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction, National Education Policy Centre, Boulder, CO. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/research-based-options OECD 2013, PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV), PISA , OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en OECD 2016a, PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en OECD 2016b, Low-Performing Students: Why They Fall Behind and How To Help Them Succeed, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250246-en Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore 2014. Does Class Size Matter? National Education Policy Centre, Boulder, CO. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/does-class-size-matter Thomson, Sue; De Bortoli, Lisa & Underwood, Catherine 2016, PISA 2015: A first look at Australia’s results, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell. https://www.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/reports