Autor: Speaker: Andreas Schleicher, Director, Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD.
Presentation made for the first IIEP Strategic Debate of 2017.
More information: http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/strategic-debate-real-progress-being-made-equitable-provision-education-pisaresults-3879
2024: The FAR, Federal Acquisition Regulations - Part 29
PISA: Where is real progress being made in provinding equitable education?
1. Where is real progress being made
in providing equitable education?
IIEP Strategic Debates
Andreas Schleicher
Director for Education and Skills
2. PISA in brief - 2015
In 2015, over half a million students…
- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies
… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…
- Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to
extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations
- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…
- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation
Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:
- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences
- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
5. Trends in science performance (PISA)
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD average
6. Singapore
Japan
EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland
Macao (China)
CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
Australia United KingdomGermany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Ireland
Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Spain Latvia Russia
Luxembourg Italy
Hungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland
IsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
Greece
Chile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguay
Romania
Moldova Turkey
Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico
MontenegroJordan
Indonesia Brazil
Peru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROM
Kosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Meanscienceperformance
Higherperfomance
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries
combine excellence
with equity
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity
More equity
8. -2 -1 0 1 2
300
400
500
600
700
ESCS
PISAsciencescale
USA 2006
USA 2015
No
difference
Significant
difference
Greater equity
9. Poverty is not destiny - Science performance
by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630
DominicanRepublic40
Algeria52
Kosovo10
Qatar3
FYROM13
Tunisia39
Montenegro11
Jordan21
UnitedArabEmirates3
Georgia19
Lebanon27
Indonesia74
Mexico53
Peru50
CostaRica38
Brazil43
Turkey59
Moldova28
Thailand55
Colombia43
Iceland1
TrinidadandTobago14
Romania20
Israel6
Bulgaria13
Greece13
Russia5
Uruguay39
Chile27
Latvia25
Lithuania12
SlovakRepublic8
Italy15
Norway1
Spain31
Hungary16
Croatia10
Denmark3
OECDaverage12
Sweden3
Malta13
UnitedStates11
Macao(China)22
Ireland5
Austria5
Portugal28
Luxembourg14
HongKong(China)26
CzechRepublic9
Poland16
Australia4
UnitedKingdom5
Canada2
France9
Korea6
NewZealand5
Switzerland8
Netherlands4
Slovenia5
Belgium7
Finland2
Estonia5
VietNam76
Germany7
Japan8
ChineseTaipei12
B-S-J-G(China)52
Singapore11
Scorepoints
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Figure I.6.7
% of students
in the bottom
international
deciles of
ESCS
OECD median student
10. Students expecting a career in science
Figure I.3.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
DominicanRep.12
CostaRica11
Jordan6
UnitedArabEm.11
Mexico6
Colombia8
Lebanon15
Brazil19
Peru7
Qatar19
UnitedStates13
Chile18
Tunisia19
Canada21
Slovenia16
Turkey6
Australia15
UnitedKingdom17
Malaysia4
Kazakhstan14
Spain11
Norway21
Uruguay17
Singapore14
TrinidadandT.13
Israel25
CABA(Arg.)19
Portugal18
Bulgaria25
Ireland13
Kosovo7
Algeria12
Malta11
Greece12
NewZealand24
Albania29
Estonia15
OECDaverage19
Belgium16
Croatia17
FYROM20
Lithuania21
Iceland22
Russia19
HKG(China)20
Romania20
Italy17
Austria23
Moldova7
Latvia19
Montenegro18
France21
Luxembourg18
Poland13
Macao(China)10
ChineseTaipei21
Sweden21
Thailand27
VietNam13
Switzerland22
Korea7
Hungary22
SlovakRepublic24
Japan18
Finland24
Georgia27
CzechRepublic22
B-S-J-G(China)31
Netherlands19
Germany33
Indonesia19
Denmark48
%
Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and
technical occupations when they are 30
Science-related technicians and associate professionals
Information and communication technology professionals
Health professionals
Science and engineering professionals
%ofstudentswithvag
ueormissingexpectati
ons
11. 0
10
20
30
40
50
300 400 500 600 700
Percentageofstudentsexpectinga
careerinscience
Score points in science
Low enjoyment of science
High enjoyment of science
Students expecting a career in science
by performance and enjoyment of learning
Figure I.3.17
12. Singapore
Canada
Slovenia
Australia
United Kingdom
Ireland
Portugal
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong (China)
New Zealand
Denmark
Japan
Estonia
Finland
Macao (China)
Viet Nam
B-S-J-G (China)
Korea
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Belgium
Poland
Sweden
Lithuania
Croatia
Iceland
Georgia
Malta
United States
Spain
Israel
United Arab Emirates
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Jordan
Kosovo
Lebanon
Mexico
Peru
Qatar
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Above-average science
performance
Stronger than average
beliefs in science
Above-average percentage of students expecting
to work in a science-related occupation
Norway
Multipleoutcomes
13. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
14. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
16. Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and
science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
Switzerland
NorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Japan
Slovenia
Australia
Germany
Ireland
FranceItaly
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea Spain
Poland
Israel
Estonia
Czech Rep.
LatviaSlovak Rep.
Russia
Croatia
Lithuania
Hungary
Costa Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
Uruguay
Bulgaria
Mexico
Thailand Montenegro
Colombia
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
Scienceperformance(scorepoints)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
17. Differences in educational resources
between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CABA(Argentina)
Mexico
Peru
Macao(China)
UnitedArabEmirates
Lebanon
Jordan
Colombia
Brazil
Indonesia
Turkey
Spain
DominicanRepublic
Georgia
Uruguay
Thailand
B-S-J-G(China)
Australia
Japan
Chile
Luxembourg
Russia
Portugal
Malta
Italy
NewZealand
Croatia
Ireland
Algeria
Norway
Israel
Denmark
Sweden
UnitedStates
Moldova
Belgium
Slovenia
OECDaverage
Hungary
ChineseTaipei
VietNam
CzechRepublic
Singapore
Tunisia
Greece
TrinidadandTobago
Canada
Romania
Qatar
Montenegro
Kosovo
Netherlands
Korea
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
HongKong(China)
Austria
FYROM
Poland
Albania
Bulgaria
SlovakRepublic
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
CostaRica
UnitedKingdom
Latvia
Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantaged
anddisadvantagedschools
Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff
Disadvantaged schools have more
resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer
resources than advantaged schools
19. 0
5
10
15
20
25
The material for
hands-on
activities in
science is in
good shape
Compared to
other
departments,
our school‘s
science
department is
well-equipped
Compared to
similar schools,
we have a well-
equipped
laboratory
We have extra
laboratory staff
that helps
support science
teaching
We have enough
laboratory
material that all
courses can
regularly use it
If we ever have
some extra
funding, a big
share goes into
improvement of
our science
teaching
Our school
spends extra
money on up-to-
date science
equipment
Science teachers
are among our
best-educated
staff members
Score-pointdifference
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Science-specific resources at school
and science performance
Figure II.2.7
24. -40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Staff
resisting
change
Teachers
being too
strict with
students
Teachers
not meeting
individual
students’
needs
Teacher
absenteeism
Teachers
not being
well
prepared for
classes
Student use
of alcohol or
illegal drugs
Students
intimidating
or bullying
other
students
Students
skipping
classes
Student
truancy
Students
lacking
respect for
teachers
Score-pointdifference
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning
and science performance
Figure II.3.10
25. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Compared to
other
departments,
the school‘s
science
department is
well-equipped
Science teachers
are among our
best-educated
staff members
School offers a
science club
School offers
science
competitions
Learning time in
regular science
lessons, in hours
Time per week
studying
science
after school,
in hours
Teacher-directed
instruction
Perceived
feedback
adaptive
instruction
Enquiry-based
instruction
Teacher support
z-scores
After accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schools
Before accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schools
Explaining students' expectations of a career in science
Figure II.2.22
Science-specific
resources
Science activities Learning time Teaching strategies in science lessons
Confidence
No association
28. First age at selection in the education system and
index of teacher support in science lessons
Figure II.3.11
10
Austria
Belgium
8
4
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
12
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
5
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea Latvia
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
9
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
11
3
Albania
Brazil
B-S-J-G (China)
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Dominican Rep.
FYROM
Georgia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
1
Lithuania
Macao (China)
7
Montenegro
2
6
Romania
Russia
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam
R² = 0.36
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Indexofteachersupportinsciencelessons
First age at selection in the education system
1. Jordan
2. Peru
3. United States
4. Chile
5. Iceland
6. Qatar
7. Malta
8. Canada
9. New Zealand
10. Australia
11. United Kingdom
12. Finland
In education systems with early
tracking students are less likely to
report that their science teachers
support students in their learning
29. Low expenses as a reason for choosing school,
by schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Scotland(UK)
DominicanRepublic
Mexico
HongKong(China)
Macao(China)
Italy
Korea
OECDaverage
Germany
Belgium(Flemmish)
France
Georgia
Ireland
Portugal
Chile
Croatia
Luxembourg
Spain
Malta
%
Percentage-pointdifference
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
advantaged schools
Low expenses are more important
for parents whose children attend
disadvantaged schools
31. School reputation as a reason for choosing school,
by schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Macao(China)
Korea
Italy
Croatia
HongKong(China)
Mexico
Belgium(Flemmish)
Portugal
France
OECDaverage
Scotland(UK)
Chile
Ireland
Malta
Luxembourg
Spain
DominicanRepublic
Georgia
Germany
%
Percentage-pointdifference
Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Percentage of parents who consider school reputation "important" or "very important"
School reputation is more
important for parents
whose children attend
advantaged schools
School reputation is more important for parents
whose children attend disadvantaged schools
36. Student-teacher ratios and class size
Figure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
Jordan
Viet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J
(China)
Turkey
Georgia
Chinese
Taipei
Mexico
Russia
Albania
Hong Kong
(China)
Japan
Belgium
Algeria
Colombia
Peru
Macao
(China)
Switzerland
Malta
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Singapore
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
R² = 0.25
5
10
15
20
25
30
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Student-teacherratio
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios
and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios
and large class sizes
OECD
average
OECDaverage
41. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa
– All publications
– The complete micro-level database
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
Thank you
Notas del editor
We did our last PISA assessment of learning outcomes in science in 2006, and it was a quite different world then.
It is hard to imagine but we did not have the iphone then. Twitter was still a sound, Skype for most people was a typographical error in those times, the amazon was still a river, there was no android, no video streaming.
But science learning outcomes in the industrialised world remained entirely flat during those years.
And the world moved on, streetmaps became dynamic,
cars became electric and started to drive automatically, drones started to fly, and crowdfunding hugely amplified the potential of each of us individually and of us collectively.
But again, this did not translate into improved learning outcomes.
And in just the last few years, so many things have happened, virtual reality brought the whole world to each of us in real time, 3D printers can produce right where we are, robotics is changing the lives of people, or think about big data, the cloud, biogenetics and our capacity to affect life as such.
But science performance of students remained unfazed by all of this.
When you see that, you might be tempted to drop the idea of improving education, as an agenda that is too big, too complex and too politically charged and too entrenched in vested interests to warrant real progress.
But dont give up yet, the PISA data also show some amazing success stories.
Portugal kept moving on from poor to adequate, despite a difficult financial crisis.
Singapore kept advancing from good to great.
The UK held its ground.
So there is hope
But then, doing well in science is only part of the story. Here you see the share of students who want to go on to a science career, so students who see science as opening life opportunities.
And while students in Vietnam do well in science, they dont relate science to their future lives. So something is missing here.
And the same is true for other high performing education systems too.
Conversely, students in the United States are keen on a science career, but they dont have the skills to realise their dreams.
So do we have to choose between good outcomes and strong motivation?
Without confidence intervals
The point is that we have to get several things right to speak of a good education.
Success in science is about performance,
but its also about having students trust in the methods of science
And about students wanting to pursue science in their own lives.
Singapore is a country that gets all of that right, and at a lower level you can see that also in …
Chinese Taipei…
Note that the largest gaps are found in many education systems with early tracking: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland
After accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic status
Measured in z-scores so the odds ratios can be compared across explanatory variables
Cross-country analysis. All variables included in the same regression model. R2: 44%.
Repeated a grade at least once in primary, lower secondary or upper secondary
After accounting for academic performance, student behaviour and motivation, gender and immigrant background