This document summarizes key findings from PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) reports about closing achievement gaps and improving equity and excellence in education systems around the world. Some of the main points discussed include how some countries have been able to combine high academic performance with greater equity; the relationship between learning time, enjoyment of science, and career expectations; and lessons learned about targeting resources and reforming systems to have the greatest impact on outcomes.
3. 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
5. 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
6. Quality time
Making learning time productive so that students
can build their academic, social and emotional
skills in a balanced way
7. Learning time and science performance
Figure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
New Zealand
Macao
(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong
(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
Poland
United States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
Costa
Rica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
United
Arab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican
Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PISAsciencescore
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECD average
OECD average
OECDaverage
8. Learning time and science performance
Figure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Japan
Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
NewZealand
Australia
CzechRepublic
Macao(China)
UnitedKingdom
Canada
Belgium
France
Norway
Slovenia
Iceland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Latvia
HongKong(China)
OECDaverage
ChineseTaipei
Austria
Portugal
Uruguay
Lithuania
Singapore
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
SlovakRepublic
Spain
Croatia
UnitedStates
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia
Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G(China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
UnitedArabEmirates
Tunisia
DominicanRepublic
Scorepointsinscienceperhouroftotallearningtime
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
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
%ofstudentswith
vagueormissing
expectations
11. 0
10
20
30
40
50
300 400 500 600 700
Percentageofstudentsexpectinga
careerinscience
Score points in science
Low enjoyment of science
Moderate enjoyment of science
High enjoyment of science
Students expecting a career in science
by performance and enjoyment of learning
Figure I.3.17
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
epistemic beliefs
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
15. Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15
and science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
Switzerland
NorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark
Finland NetherlandsCanada
Japan
Slovenia
Australia
Germany
Ireland
France
Italy
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea
Spain
Poland
Israel
Estonia
Czech Rep.Latvia
Slovak Rep.
Russia
CroatiaLithuania
Hungary
Costa Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
Uruguay
Bulgaria
MexicoThailand
Montenegro
Colombia
Dominican Republic
PeruGeorgia
R² = 0.04
R² = 0.36
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scienceperformance(scorepoints)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
16. Variation in science performance between and within schools
Figure I.6.11
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Netherlands114
B-S-J-G(China)119
Bulgaria115
Hungary104
TrinidadandTobago98
Belgium112
Slovenia101
Germany110
SlovakRepublic109
Malta154
UnitedArabEmirates110
Austria106
Israel126
Lebanon91
CzechRepublic101
Qatar109
Japan97
Switzerland110
Singapore120
Italy93
ChineseTaipei111
Luxembourg112
Turkey70
Brazil89
Croatia89
Greece94
Chile83
Lithuania92
OECDaverage100
Uruguay84
CABA(Argentina)82
Romania70
VietNam65
Korea101
Australia117
UnitedKingdom111
Peru66
Colombia72
Thailand69
HongKong(China)72
FYROM80
Portugal94
DominicanRepublic59
Indonesia52
Georgia92
Jordan79
NewZealand121
UnitedStates108
Montenegro81
Tunisia47
Sweden117
Mexico57
Albania69
Kosovo57
Macao(China)74
Algeria54
Estonia88
Moldova83
CostaRica55
Russia76
Canada95
Poland92
Denmark91
Latvia75
Ireland88
Spain86
Norway103
Finland103
Iceland93
Between-school variation Within-school variation
Total variation as a
proportion of the OECD
average
OECD average 69%
OECD average 30%
%
17. 200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Below
1b
Level
1b
Level
1a
Level
2
Level
3
Level
4
Level
5
Lev
6
Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
Scorepoints
18. 200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Below
1b
Level
1b
Level
1a
Level
2
Level
3
Level
4
Level
5
Lev
6
Scorepoints
Viet Nam: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
19. 200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Below
1b
Level
1b
Level
1a
Level
2
Level
3
Level
4
Level
5
Lev
6
Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
Scorepoints
20. 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
21. First age at selection in the education system and
index of teacher support in science lessons
Figure II.3.11
10
Austria
Belgium
8
4
Czech Republic
Demark
Estonia
12
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
5
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea Latvia
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
9
Norwy
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
11
3
Albania
Brazil
B-S-G-J (China)
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Dominican Rep.
FYROM
Georgia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
1
Lithuania
Macao (China)
7
Montenegro
2
6
Romania
Russia
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam
R² = 0.36
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Indexofteachersupportinsciencelessons
First age at selection in the education system
1. Jordan
2. Peru
3. United States
4. Chile
5. Iceland
6. Qatar
7. Malta
8. Canada
9. New Zealand
10. Australia
11. United Kingdom
12. Finland
In education systems with early
tracking students are less likely to
report that their science teachers
support students in their learning
23. Student performance in science
by immigrant background
Figure I.7.4
350
400
450
500
550
600
Greece
CostaRica
Jordan
CABA(Argentina)
Israel
Sweden
France
Slovenia
Austria
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Italy
Norway
Belgium
OECDaverage
Spain
Croatia
UnitedStates
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Qatar
Portugal
Russia
UnitedArabEmirates
UnitedKingdom
Ireland
Australia
Estonia
HongKong(China)
NewZealand
Canada
Macao(China)
Singapore
Score points Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students
24. Percentage of immigrant students and education systems'
average performance in science
OECD average
CABA (Argentina)
Costa Rica
Sweden
Jordan
Luxembourg
United States
Denmark
Italy
Australia
Portugal
Russia
Hong Kong (China)
Qatar
Belgium
Israel
Croatia
United Arab Emirates
Ireland
Greece
New Zealand
Macao-China
Spain
Switzerland
Estonia
1.8, 332
Netherlands
Germany
Singapore
Austria
Canada
United Kingdom
Slovenia
France
R² = 0.09
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Meanscienceperformance
Percentage of immigrant students
Figure I.7.3
26. 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
Note: Belgium refers only to French and German-speaking communities