PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do Programme for International Student Assessment PISA 2009 Evaluating systems to.
Download ReportTranscript PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do Programme for International Student Assessment PISA 2009 Evaluating systems to.
PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 Programme for International Student Assessment PISA 2009 Evaluating systems to improve education The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards alone but the best performing education systems Andreas Schleicher Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, EDU PISA PISA 2009 in brief PISA countries in 2001 2003 2000 2009 2006 1998 Coverage world economy 83% Over half a million of students… 81% 77% 86% 85% 87% Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 22 representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74* 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 … and responded to questions on… their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on… * school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences . Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011 PISA PISA 2009 in brief PISA countries in 2001 2003 2000 2009 2006 1998 PISA seeks to… of world economy 83% Coverage 81% 77% 86% 85% 87% Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 … Support governments to prepare students… OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 33 … to deal with more rapid change than ever before… … for jobs that have not yet been created… … using technologies that have not yet been invented… … to solve problems that we don’t yet know will arise … Provide a basis for policy dialogue and global collaboration in defining and implementing educational goals, policies and practices – Show countries what achievements are possible – Help governments set policy targets in terms of measurable goals achieved elsewhere – Gauge the pace of educational progress – Facilitate peer-learning on policy and practice . PISA PISA 2009 in brief PISA countries in 2001 2003 2000 2009 2006 1998 Key principles Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 44 world economy ‘CrowdCoverage sourcing’ andof collaboration 83% 81% 77% 86% 85% 87% – PISA draws together leading expertise and institutions from participating countries to develop instruments and methodologies… … guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests Cross-national relevance and transferability of policy experiences – Emphasis on validity across cultures, languages and systems – Frameworks built on well-structured conceptual understanding of assessment areas and contextual factors Triangulation across different stakeholder perspectives – Systematic integration of insights from students, parents, school principals and system-leaders Advanced methods with different grain sizes – A range of methods to adequately measure intended constructs with different grain sizes to serve different decision-making needs – Productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement at multiple levels . Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution PISA How the demand for skills has changed Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US) OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 55 65 Routine manual 60 Nonroutine manual 55 Routine cognitive 50 Nonroutine analytic 45 Nonroutine interactive 40 of 2002 schools: 1980 The dilemma 1990 The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to (Levy and Murnane) digitise, automate and outsource 1960 1970 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 66 Coverage of world economy 83% 81% 77% 86% 85% 87% PISA countries in 2001 2003 2000 2009 2006 1998 High policy value 7 PISA Quick wins Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Examining individual, institutional and systemic factors associated with quality, equity and efficiency in education Understanding drivers of successful reform trajectories OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 7 Providing countries with effective tools to review the choices and trade-offsMust whichhaves they face as they seek to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their education systems Monitoring educational progress Extending the range of competencies through which quality is assessed A brief history of PISA PISA 2000 More difficult Less difficult Proliferation of assessment areas . Money pits Electronic delivery of assessments Measuring student learning outcomes in key subjects Low-hanging fruits Moderate policy value High policy value 8 PISA Quick wins Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Examining individual, institutional and systemic factors associated with quality, equity and efficiency in education Understanding drivers of successful reform trajectories OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 8 Providing countries with effective tools to review the choices and trade-offsMust whichhaves they face as they seek to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their education systems Monitoring educational progress Extending the range of competencies through which quality is assessed PISA 2003 More difficult Proliferation of assessment areas . Less difficult Measuring student learning outcomes in Electronic delivery of assessments key subjects and establishing the comparative strengths and weaknesses of education systems Money pits Low-hanging fruits Moderate policy value High policy value 9 PISA Quick wins Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Examining individual, institutional and systemic factors associated with quality, equity and efficiency in education Understanding drivers of successful reform trajectories OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 9 Providing countries with effective tools to review the choices and trade-offsMust whichhaves they face as they seek to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their education systems Monitoring educational progress Extending the range of competencies through which quality is assessed PISA 2006 More difficult Less difficult Measuring student learning outcomes in Electronic delivery of assessments key subjects and establishing the comparative strengths and weaknesses of education systems Proliferation of assessment areas . Money pits Moderate policy value Low-hanging fruits 10 High policy value PISA Quick wins Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Examining individual, institutional and systemic factors associated with quality, equity and efficiency in education Understanding drivers of successful reform trajectories OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 Providing countries with effective tools to review the choices and trade-offsMust whichhaves they face as they seek to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their education systems Monitoring educational progress Extending the range of competencies through which quality is assessed Affective dimensions of outcomes Assessment of digital literacy More difficult Proliferation of assessment areas Money pits Moderate policy value PISA 2009 Less difficult Measuring student learning outcomes in Electronic delivery of assessments key subjects and establishing the comparative strengths and weaknesses of education systems Low-hanging fruits PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 11 11 What 15-year-olds can do PISA Shanghai-China Korea OECD Programme for Finland International Student Assessment Hong Kong-China Canada Singapore Estonia Japan Australia Netherlands New Zealand Macao-China Norway Poland Denmark Chinese Taipei Liechtenstein Switzerland Iceland Ireland Sweden Hungary Latvia United States Portugal Belgium United Kingdom Germany Spain France Italy Slovenia Greece Slovak Republic Croatia Czech Republic Lithuania Turkey Luxembourg Israel Russian Federation Austria Chile Dubai (UAE) Serbia Mexico Romania Bulgaria Uruguay Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Colombia Jordan Montenegro Brazil Tunisia Argentina Indonesia Albania Kazakhstan Qatar Peru Panama Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 12 12 What students know and can do How proficient are students in reading? Students at Level 5 can handle texts that 3are unfamiliar in either form and in some cases Tasks at Level require students to locate, % or content. They can find information in such texts, demonstrate recognise the relationship between, several pieces of information detailed understanding, andthat infer which information is relevant Interpretative to the must meet multiple conditions. tasks at this 100 task. They are also able to critically evaluate such texts and build level require the reader to integrate several parts of a text in hypotheses about them, drawing knowledge and order on to specialised identify a main idea, understand a relationship or construe80 accommodating concepts that be contrary to or expectations. themay meaning of a word phrase. Reflective tasks at this level may require connections, comparisons, and explanations, or they may 60 require the reader to evaluate a feature of the text. Tasks at Level 6 require students to make multiple inferences, 40 comparisons and contrasts that are both detailed and precise. They Tasks at Level 4 that involve require the of one or require demonstration ofretrieving a full and information detailed understanding 20 reader to locate andmay organise several piecesinformation of embedded more texts and involve integrating from more than information. tasks this level requireto interpreting the one text.Some Tasks may at require the reader deal with unfamiliar ideas, 0 meaning of nuances of language in a section of text by taking into in the presence of prominent competing information, and to generate Some tasks Level Other 2 require students to tasks locate one or more pieces account the text as at a whole. interpretative abstract categories for interpretations. Reflect andrequire evaluate tasks of information, which may needinto be inferredcontext. and may need to 20 understanding and applying categories an unfamiliar may require the reader to hypothesise about or critically evaluate a meet several conditions. Others require recognising the main idea in Reflective tasks level require readers tointo use formal or complex textatonthis an unfamiliar topic, taking account multiple a text, understanding relationships, or construing meaning Tasks atknowledge Level 1aTasks require students to locate one public to hypothesise about or critically evaluate a 40 at Leveland 1b require to locate a text.within a criteria or perspectives, applyingstudents sophisticated understandings limited part of the text when the information is not prominent and orReaders more independent pieces of demonstrate anexplicitly accurate stated understanding of long single explicitly stated information in aor frommust beyond the piece text. of the reader must make low level inferences. information; to recognise the main theme orbesyntactically complex texts whose content or form unfamiliar. 60 prominent position in a may short, author’s purposesimple in a text about a familiar topic, text with a familiar context and text or to make a simple connection type, such as abetween narrative or a simple list. There 80 information in the text and common, everyday is minimal competing information. knowledge 100 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 13 13 Performance in reading OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.11b PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 14 14 Performance in mathematics OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1c PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 15 15 Performance in science OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.2c Shanghai-China High reading performance PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Science UK Singapore New Zealand Japan Australia Belgium Poland, Switzerland United States Germany, Sweden France, Ireland Hungary, Math UK United Kingdom Macao-China OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 16 16 Slovenia Slovak Republic, Czech Republic Luxembourg, Israel Austria Dubai (UAE) Average performance of 15-year-olds in 540.000 Korea reading – extrapolate Finland Hong Kong-China and apply Canada 520.000 Netherlands Norway , Estonia Iceland 500.000 Liechtenstein Chinese Taipei Denmark Portugal Italy Latvia Greece 480.000 Spain Croatia Lithuania Turkey 460.000 Russian Federation Chile Serbia 440.000 55 45 35 25 … 17 countries perform below this line Low reading performance Shanghai-China High reading performance PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Singapore New Zealand Japan Australia Belgium Poland, Switzerland Science US United States Germany, Sweden France, Ireland Hungary, United Kingdom Math US OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 17 17 Macao-China Slovenia Slovak Republic, Czech Republic Luxembourg, Israel Austria Dubai (UAE) Average performance of 15-year-olds in 540.000 Korea reading – extrapolate Finland Hong Kong-China and apply Canada 520.000 Netherlands Northeast Norway , Estonia Midwest Iceland 500.000 Liechtenstein Chinese Taipei Denmark Portugal Italy West Latvia Greece South 480.000 Spain Croatia Lithuania Turkey 460.000 Russian Federation Chile Serbia 440.000 55 45 35 25 … 17 countries perform below this line Low reading performance PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 18 18 PISA 50 40 30 -10 -20 -30 -40 Peru Chile Albania Indonesia Latvia Israel Poland Portugal Liechtenstein Brazil Korea Hungary Germany Greece Hong Kong-China Switzerland Mexico OECD average-26 Belgium Bulgaria Italy Denmark Norway Russian Federation Japan Romania United States Iceland New Zealand France Thailand Canada Finland Spain Australia Czech Republic Sweden Argentina Ireland Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do Score point change OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 19 19 Change in reading performance between 2000 and 2009 Reading performance improved 20 10 0 Reading performance declined How countries perform in reading and how reading performance has changed since 2000 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Mean performance in reading 2009 PISA Score point change in reading between 2000 and 2009 is statistically signifcant 600 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 20 20 High performance Declining High performance Increasing 550 Ireland 500 Korea Finland Hong Kong-China CanadaNew Zealand Australia Japan Belgium Liechtenstein Sweden Germany NorwaySwitzerland Iceland Poland United States France Denmark Portugal Italy Hungary Latvia Spain Greece Israel Czech Republic Russian Federation 450 Chile RomaniaBulgaria Mexico Thailand 400 Brazil Indonesia Argentina Low performance Declining Albania Low performance Peru Increasing 350 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Score point change in reading performance between 2000 and 2009 PISA 60 50 40 0 o o o o o o o o + + + o o + + o o + o o o o + o - Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do % Korea Finland Hong Kong-China Canada Japan Australia New Zealand Norway Poland Denmark Liechtenstein Switzerland Iceland Ireland Sweden Hungary Latvia United States Portugal Belgium OECD average-26 Germany Spain France Italy Greece Czech Republic Israel Russian Federation Chile Mexico Romania Bulgaria Thailand Brazil Argentina Indonesia Albania Peru OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 21 21 Percentage of students below proficiency Level 2 in reading between 2000 and 2009 90 2009 + 2009 higher than 2000 - 2009 lower than 2000 o Not statistically significant difference 2000 80 70 2000 2009 30 20 10 PISA 4 2 + + + o o o o o o + o o o o o o o o o o + + o o o o o o Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do % New Zealand Finland Japan Korea Australia Canada Hong Kong-China Belgium United States France Sweden Iceland Norway Switzerland Germany Israel Poland Ireland Hungary Italy Greece Czech Republic Portugal Denmark Liechtenstein Spain Russian Federation Latvia Bulgaria Brazil Chile Argentina Romania Peru Mexico Thailand Albania Indonesia OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 22 22 Percentage of top performers in reading between 2000 and 2009 2009 16 14 2009 12 2000 20 18 + 2009 higher than 2000 - 2009 lower than 2000 o Not statistically significant difference 10 8 6 2000 0 PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do % 15 -15 -20 Chile Indonesia Peru Albania Latvia Portugal Poland Israel Liechtenstein Brazil Hungary Germany Mexico Switzerland Greece Denmark Norway Belgium OECD average-26 Romania Hong Kong-China United States Russian Federation Korea New Zealand Bulgaria Canada Finland Australia Italy Iceland Spain Japan France Sweden Czech Republic Thailand Ireland Argentina OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 23 23 Change in the share of boys and girls who are low performers in reading between 2000 and 2009 Change in the percentage of boys below proficiency Level 2 Change in the percentage of girls below proficiency Level 2 10 Share of students below proficiency Level 2 increased 5 0 -5 -10 Share of students below proficiency Level 2 decreased -25 PISA Peru Chile Albania Indonesia Latvia Israel Poland Portugal Liechtenstein Brazil Korea Hungary Germany Greece Hong Kong-China Switzerland Mexico OECD average-26 Belgium Bulgaria Italy Denmark Norway Russian Federation Japan Romania United States Iceland New Zealand France Thailand Canada Finland Spain Australia Czech Republic Sweden Argentina Austria Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do Score point change OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 24 24 Observed score point change Changes in reading performance between 2000 and 2009 Score point change adjusted for socio-demographic changes 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 400 Level 1a 450 Level 2 500 Level 3 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 600 Level 4 650 Level 5 and above 25 25 Trends in reading performance Score United States 700 Proficiency levels 550 350 2000 2003 2006 2009 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 400 Level 1a 450 Level 2 500 Level 3 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 600 Level 4 650 Level 5 and above 26 26 Trends in reading performance Score Germany 700 Proficiency levels 550 350 2000 2003 2006 2009 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 400 Level 1a 450 Level 2 500 Level 3 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 600 Level 4 650 Level 5 and above 27 27 Trends in reading performance Score Poland 700 Proficiency levels 550 350 2000 2003 2006 2009 High reading performance PISA High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 28 28 Average performance 15-year-olds Highof average performancein science – extrapolate High social equity and apply Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low reading performance Australia High reading performance 2009 Belgium Canada High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socioSocially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden High social equity Switzerland Large socio-economic disparities UK 55 45 35 25 1 US Low reading performance PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 29 29 2009 Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik High reading performance 2009 PISA High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 30 30 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low reading performance High reading performance 2000 PISA High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 31 31 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low reading performance High reading performance 2000 PISA High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 32 32 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low reading performance PISA 560.000 High mathematics performance Singapore (565) Switzerland Japan Macao-China New Zealand Belgium Australia Estonia, Germany Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Average performance of 15-year-olds in Korea mathematics – 540.000 Finland Liechtenstein extrapolate and apply Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Slovenia Austria, Slovak Republic, France Sweden, Poland United Kingdom, Czech Republic Hungary Luxembourg Ireland, United States OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 33 33 Shanghai-China (600) Canada Netherlands 520.000 Iceland Denmark 500.000 Norway Portugal Spain Italy 480.000 Latvia Lithuania Russian Federation Greece Croatia 460.000 Dubai (UAE) Israel 55 Turkey Serbia …440.000 21 countries perform below this line 45 35 Low mathematics performance 25 PISA 40 30 20 -10 -20 Mexico Brazil Turkey Greece Portugal Italy Tunisia Indonesia Germany Switzerland Serbia Poland Uruguay United States Hong Kong-China Korea Norway Thailand Liechtenstein Hungary OECD average-28 Russian Federation Latvia Slovak Republic Spain Macao-China Finland Luxembourg New Zealand Japan Canada Iceland Australia Denmark Netherlands Belgium France Sweden Ireland Czech Republic Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do Score point change OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 34 Change in mathematics performance 34 between 2003 and 2009 Mathematics performance improved 10 0 Mathematics performance declined -30 How countries perform in mathematics and how mathematics performance has changed since 2003 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Mean performance in mathematics 2009 PISA Score point change in mathematics between 2003 and 2009 is statistically significant 600 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 35 35 High performance Declining 550 500 High performance Increasing Hong Kong-China Korea Finland Liechtenstein Switzerland NetherlandsCanada Japan Macao-China Belgium Australia New Zealand Germany Denmark Slovak Republic Iceland France Norway Poland Sweden Hungary Spain United States Czech Republic IrelandLuxembourg Latvia Italy Russian Federation 450 Serbia Uruguay Thailand Portugal Greece Turkey Mexico 400 Low performance Declining Indonesia Brazil Low performance Tunisia Increasing 350 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Score point change in mathematics performance between 2003 and 2009 40 PISA 50 40 o o o o o o o o o o o + o o o + o + o + o + + o o o + o o o o o Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 70 Finland Korea Hong Kong-China Liechtenstein Macao-China Canada Japan Netherlands Switzerland New Zealand Australia Iceland Denmark Norway Germany Belgium Poland Ireland Slovak Republic Sweden Hungary Czech Republic France Latvia United States Portugal Spain Luxembourg Italy Russian Federation Greece Serbia Turkey Uruguay Mexico Thailand Brazil Tunisia Indonesia OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 36 36 % Percentage of students below proficiency Level 2 in mathematics between 2003 and 2009 90 2009 60 2003 80 2003 2009 + 2009 higher than 2003 - 2009 lower than 2003 o Not statistically significant difference 30 20 10 0 What students know and can do 35 30 10 20 15 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o + + o + o o o o o o + o o % Hong Kong-China Korea Switzerland Finland Japan Belgium Netherlands New Zealand Canada Liechtenstein Germany Macao-China Australia France Iceland Slovak Republic Czech Republic Denmark Sweden Luxembourg Poland Norway Hungary United States Portugal Italy Spain Ireland Greece Latvia Turkey Russian Federation Serbia Uruguay Thailand Brazil Mexico Tunisia Indonesia Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 PISA 25 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 37 37 Percentage of top performers in mathematics between 2003 and 2009 2009 2003 2003 2009 + 2009 higher than 2003 - 2009 lower than 2003 o Not statistically significant difference 5 0 High mathematics560.000 performance Shanghai-China (600) PISA Singapore (565) High average performance Chinese Taipei Large socio-economic disparities Switzerland Japan Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Macao-China OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 38 38 New Zealand Belgium Australia Estonia, Germany Slovenia Austria, Slovak Republic, France Sweden,Poland United Kingdom, Czech Republic Strong socioHungary Luxembourg economic impact on Ireland, United States student performance Average performance 15-year-olds Korea Highof average performancein 540.000 Finland science – extrapolate Liechtenstein High social equity and apply Hong Kong-China Canada Netherlands 520.000 Iceland Denmark 500.000 Norway Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Portugal Spain Italy 480.000 Latvia Lithuania Russian Federation Greece Croatia Dubai (UAE) Israel Serbia Low average performance 55 45 Large socio-economic disparities 460.000 Turkey 440.000 35 Low average performance 25 High social equity Low mathematics performance Australia High mathematics performance Shanghai-China (600) Singapore (565) Belgium Canada High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socioSocially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden High social equity Switzerland Large socio-economic disparities UK 15 US Low mathematics performance PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 39 39 2009 Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik PISA Singapore (565) High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 40 40 High mathematics performance Shanghai-China (600) 15 2009 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low mathematics performance PISA Singapore (565) High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 41 41 High mathematics performance Shanghai-China (600) 15 2003 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low mathematics performance PISA Singapore (565) High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 42 42 High mathematics performance Shanghai-China (600) 15 2006 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low mathematics performance PISA Singapore (565) High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 43 43 High mathematics performance Shanghai-China (600) 15 2009 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low mathematics performance High science performance PISA 560 Shanghai-China Singapore Japan New Zealand Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Australia Germany Switzerland United Kingdom Slovenia Poland Belgium, Ireland United States, Hungary Czech Republic France Austria, Sweden OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 44 44 Slovak Republic Luxembourg (575) Average performance Finland of 15-year-olds in Hong Kong-China science – extrapolate 540 and apply Korea Canada Estonia Netherlands Chinese Taipei 520 Liechtenstein Macao-China 500 Norway , Denmark Iceland Latvia Portugal Lithuania Italy Spain Croatia 480 Russian Federation Dubai (UAE) Greece 460 Israel Turkey Chile … Serbia 20 countries perform below this line 55 45 440 Low science performance 35 25 -10 -15 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 30 25 20 15 10 5 Qatar Turkey Portugal Korea Tunisia Brazil Colombia Italy Norway United States Poland Romania Argentina Chile Japan Kyrgyzstan Serbia Hong Kong-China Mexico Bulgaria Switzerland Iceland Germany Latvia Thailand Lithuania Denmark France OECD average -33 Slovak Republic New Zealand Israel Australia Macao-China Spain Ireland Uruguay United Kingdom Russian Federation Hungary Liechtenstein Luxembourg Netherlands Greece Estonia Belgium Canada Jordan Croatia Slovenia Sweden Azerbaijan Finland Montenegro Indonesia Chinese Taipei OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Score point students know and can do What change PISA 45 45 Change in science performance between 2006 and 2009 35 Science performance improved Science performance declined 0 -5 How countries perform in science and how science performance has changed since 2006 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Mean performance in science 2009 PISA Score point change in science performance between 2006 and 2006 is statistically significant High performance High performance Declining Increasing 600 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 46 46 550 500 Finland Hong Kong-China Japan Korea New Zealand EstoniaAustralia Chinese Taipei Canada Netherlands Germany Liechtenstein Switzerland United Kingdom Slovenia Macao-China Poland Belgium Ireland United States Denmark Hungary France Iceland Slovak Republic Norway Czech RepublicSweden Latvia Croatia SpainLithuania Portugal Luxembourg Russian Federation Italy Greece Israel 450 Montenegro Chile Serbia Bulgaria UruguayThailandRomania Mexico Jordan Brazil 400 Colombia Argentina Indonesia Low performance Azerbaijan Declining 350 -20 Turkey Tunisia Qatar Low performance Declining -10 0 10 20 30 Score point change in science performance between 2006 and 2009 40 PISA 40 30 + o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o + o o o o o o o o o o o o + o o Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do % Finland Korea Hong Kong-China Estonia Canada Macao-China Japan Chinese Taipei Liechtenstein Australia Poland Netherlands New Zealand Switzerland Hungary Latvia Slovenia Germany United Kingdom Ireland Norway Portugal Denmark Lithuania Czech Republic Iceland Belgium United States Spain Croatia Sweden Slovak Republic France Italy ussian Federation Luxembourg Greece Turkey Chile Israel Serbia Bulgaria Romania Uruguay Thailand Jordan Mexico Argentina Montenegro Tunisia Colombia Brazil Qatar Indonesia Azerbaijan OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 47 47 Percentage of students performing below proficiency Level 2 in science between 2006 and 2009 90 2009 60 50 + 2009 higher than 2006 - 2009 lower than 2006 o Not statistically significant difference 2006 80 70 2006 2009 20 10 0 PISA o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o + o o o o o o o o o o o o + o o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 Finland New Zealand Japan Hong Kong-China Australia Germany Netherlands Canada Korea United Kingdom Switzerland Estonia Belgium Slovenia Liechtenstein United States Chinese Taipei Ireland Czech Republic France Sweden Poland Iceland Denmark Luxembourg Norway Slovak Republic Italy Hungary Macao-China Lithuania Russian Federation Portugal Spain Israel Croatia Latvia Greece Bulgaria Uruguay Qatar Turkey Chile Serbia Argentina Thailand Brazil Jordan Romania Montenegro Mexico Tunisia Colombia Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 48 48 % Percentage of top performers in science in 2006 and 2009 2009 10 2006 25 20 2006 15 + 2009 higher than 2006 - 2009 lower than 2006 o Not statistically significant 2009 0 High science performance PISA Large socio-economic disparities Singapore Japan Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 performance Finland 15-year-olds Highof average performancein Hong Kong-China science – extrapolate High social equity and apply 540 560 Shanghai-China High average performance OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 49 49 New Zealand Australia Germany Switzerland United Kingdom Slovenia Poland Strong socioBelgium,Ireland Hungary economic impact onCzech Republic, United States France student performance Austria,Sweden Slovak Republic Luxembourg Dubai (UAE) Low average performance Israel Large socio-economic disparities 55 (575) Average Korea Canada Estonia Netherlands Chinese 520 Taipei Liechtenstein Macao-China Socially equitable 500 Norway , Denmark distribution of learning Iceland opportunities Latvia,Portugal Lithuania Italy, Spain Croatia 480 Russian Federation Greece 460 Turkey Low average performance High social equity Chile Serbia 440 45 Low science performance 35 25 Australia High science performance Belgium Canada High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socioSocially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden High social equity Switzerland Large socio-economic disparities UK 15 US Low science performance PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 50 50 2009 Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik High science performance 2009 PISA High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 51 51 15 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low science performance High science performance 2006 PISA High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 52 52 15 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low science performance High science performance 2009 PISA High average performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Large socio-economic disparities OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 53 53 15 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low science performance PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 54 54 Quality differences between schools What students know and can do PISA Variance 60 40 20 Argentina Trinidad and Tobago Italy Qatar Turkey Bulgaria Israel Panama Germany Peru Hungary Dubai (UAE) Austria Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands Japan Chile Uruguay Greece Brazil Czech Republic Slovenia Romania Croatia Serbia United States Mexico Singapore Jordan Kyrgyzstan Colombia Montenegro Hong Kong-China Albania Tunisia Slovak Republic Liechtenstein Kazakhstan Macao-China Ireland United Kingdom Chinese Taipei Korea Switzerland Australia New Zealand Portugal Shanghai-China Azerbaijan Russian Federation Canada Sweden Lithuania Indonesia Spain Poland Estonia Latvia Iceland Thailand Denmark Norway Finland OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 140 120 100 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 55 55 Variability in student performance 200 180 160 80 0 20 0 20 Argentina Trinidad and Tobago Italy Qatar Turkey Bulgaria Israel Panama Germany Peru Hungary Dubai (UAE) Austria Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands Japan Chile Uruguay Greece Brazil Czech Republic Slovenia Romania Croatia Serbia United States Mexico Singapore Jordan Kyrgyzstan Colombia Montenegro Hong Kong-China Albania Tunisia Slovak Republic Liechtenstein Kazakhstan Macao-China Ireland United Kingdom Chinese Taipei Korea Switzerland Australia New Zealand Portugal Shanghai-China Azerbaijan Russian Federation Canada Sweden Lithuania Indonesia Spain Poland Estonia Latvia Iceland Thailand Denmark Norway Finland Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do PISA Variance 40 60 80 100 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 56 56 Variability in student performance between and within schools 100 80 60 40 Performance differences between schools Performance variation of students within schools PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 57 57 How do social background and learning outcomes interact? PISA Measures of the relationship between socio-economic background and reading performance Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Strength of the gradient (% of variance explained by ESCS) OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 58 58 OECD average United Kingdom United States 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 59 59 Measures of the relationship between socio-economic background and reading performance Slope of the gradient (average increase in performance per unit increase in ESCS) OECD average United Kingdom United States 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 60 60 Measures of the relationship between socio-economic background and reading performance Length of the gradient (difference between 95th and 5th percentile in ESCS) OECD average United Kingdom United States 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 Strength of the relationship between student performance and socio-economic background 500 450 400 Above average reading performance Above average impact of socio-economic background Above average reading performance Below average impact of socioShanghai-China economic background Korea Finland Singapore Canada Hong Kong-China Australia New Zealand Japan Sweden Netherlands Norway Estonia Belgium United StatesPoland Switzerland Iceland Ireland Hungary France Germany Liechtenstein Chinese Taipei Denmark Greece Portugal Italy Latvia United Kingdom Slovenia OECD average Macao-China Spain Slovak Republic Croatia Lithuania Israel Czech Republic Luxembourg Austria Turkey Russian Federation Dubai (UAE) Chile Serbia Bulgaria Mexico Romania Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Thailand Colombia Brazil Jordan Montenegro Argentina Tunisia Indonesia Kazakhstan Peru 350 300 Panama Below average reading performance Above average impact of socio-economic background Kyrgyzstan OECD average Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 550 Mean performance in reading PISA 600 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 61 61 Albania Qatar Azerbaijan Below average reading performance Below average impact of socioeconomic background 30 25 20 15 10 5 Percentage of variance in performance explained by ESCS (r-squared x 100) 0 Slope of the socio-economic gradient and reading performance OECD average Above average reading performance Above average impact of socio-economic background Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Above average reading performance Below average impact of socioeconomic background Korea Shanghai-China Finland Singapore Hong Kong-China Canada Australia Japan Netherlands Belgium Estonia Iceland Switzerland United States Norway Germany Poland France Liechtenstein Sweden Chinese Italy Taipei Ireland Denmark Portugal Hungary United Kingdom Slovenia Greece Spain Latvia OECD average Czech Republic Macao-China Slovak Republic Luxembourg Croatia Israel Austria Lithuania Turkey Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation Chile Serbia Uruguay Mexico Bulgaria Romania Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Colombia Tunisia Brazil Argentina Montenegro Jordan Indonesia Kazakhstan Albania Qatar Panama Peru Azerbaijan New Zealand Mean performance in reading PISA 600 550 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 62 62 500 450 400 350 Below average reading performance Below average impact of socioeconomic background Below average reading performance Kyrgyzstanof Above average impact socio-economic background 300 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Score point difference associated with one unit increase in the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status Score point difference What students know and can do PISA 70 50 0 Iceland Jordan Thailand Macao-China Finland Azerbaijan Spain Indonesia Tunisia Poland Mexico Latvia Norway Canada Hong Kong-China Russian Federation Albania Portugal Romania Estonia Colombia Denmark Lithuania Greece Uruguay Kazakhstan Chile Chinese Taipei Sweden Serbia Ireland Brazil Panama Shanghai-China Peru Turkey New Zealand Korea Kyrgyzstan United States OECD average Luxembourg Australia Switzerland Montenegro Italy United Kingdom Argentina Croatia Slovak Republic Hungary Slovenia Qatar Austria Dubai (UAE) Bulgaria Singapore Netherlands Israel Belgium Liechtenstein Germany Czech Republic Japan 60 40 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 30 20 10 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 63 63 Impact of social background on learning outcomes 80 within schools between schools PISA -80 -100 -120 -140 -20 -40 -60 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 0 Germany France Trinidad and Tobago Greece Austria Italy Japan Romania Czech Republic Belgium Slovak Republic Bulgaria Slovenia Croatia Korea Hungary Liechtenstein Montenegro Serbia Ireland Netherlands Lithuania Dubai (UAE) OECD average Switzerland Portugal Luxembourg United Kingdom Hong Kong-China Singapore Chinese Taipei Uruguay Australia Shanghai-China Turkey New Zealand Denmark Israel Kazakhstan Mexico Peru Sweden Canada Argentina Poland Spain Tunisia United States Estonia Macao-China Albania Colombia Azerbaijan Iceland Latvia Brazil Russian Federation Chile Indonesia Norway Qatar Kyrgyzstan Finland Thailand Jordan Panama OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 20 What students know and can do Score point difference 64 64 Difference between observed and predicted performance in disadvantabed schools, by students’ socio-economic background Disadvantaged students Advantaged students Score point difference What students know and can do PISA -40 -60 -80 20 -20 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 60 0 Qatar Israel Jordan Liechtenstein Norway Sweden Iceland Montenegro Russian Federation Finland Kazakhstan Switzerland Estonia Poland Denmark Latvia Slovak Republic Singapore Azerbaijan Panama Kyrgyzstan Canada United Kingdom Turkey Thailand Czech Republic Spain Australia Ireland Netherlands United States New Zealand OECD average Tunisia Albania Hong Kong-China Lithuania Chinese Taipei Macao-China Croatia Indonesia Chile Germany Luxembourg Colombia Peru Serbia Brazil Mexico Bulgaria Dubai (UAE) Romania Portugal Slovenia Greece Argentina Korea Uruguay Belgium Hungary Japan Austria Trinidad and Tobago Shanghai-China Italy France OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 65 65 Difference between observed and predicted performance in mixed schools, by students’ socioeconomic background 40 Disadvantaged students Advantaged students 40 20 0 -20 100 80 60 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 120 Finland Norway Qatar Iceland Macao-China Denmark Poland Spain Canada Azerbaijan Dubai (UAE) United States Ireland Jordan Panama Sweden Estonia Kazakhstan Russian Federation United Kingdom Korea Indonesia Chinese Taipei Latvia Tunisia Brazil Thailand Australia Israel Greece Albania New Zealand Kyrgyzstan Romania Mexico Lithuania OECD average Chile Portugal Shanghai-China Peru Colombia Montenegro Uruguay Serbia Italy Luxembourg Croatia France Switzerland Liechtenstein Japan Turkey Belgium Slovak Republic Czech Republic Hong Kong-China Netherlands Bulgaria Argentina Austria Singapore Germany Hungary Slovenia Trinidad and Tobago OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do Score point difference PISA 66 66 Difference between observed and predicted performance in advantaged schools, by students’ socioeconomic background 140 Advantaged students Disadvantaged students School performance and socio-economic background United Kingdom Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 700 650 600 Student performance PISA Private school Public school in rural area School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Public school in urban area Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 67 67 550 500 450 400 350 300 -1 Disadvantage 0 1 PISA Index of socio-economic background 2 Advantage Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 School performance and socio-economic background Mexico 600 Student performance PISA Score OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 68 68 493 Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area 200 -3 Disadvantage -2 -1 0 PISA Index of socio-economic background 1 2 Advantage School performance and socio-economic background United States 700 643 Thousands Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools Student performance PISA Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 69 69 350 -2 Disadvantage -1 0 1 PISA Index of socio-economic background 2 Advantage School performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools Student performance and schools’ socio-economic background Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Score Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area 700 Student performance PISA Belgium OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 70 70School performance and socio-economic background 493 300 -2 Disadvantage -1 0 1 PISA Index of socio-economic background 2 Advantage School performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools Student performance and schools’ socio-economic background Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Score Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area 700 Student performance PISA Germany OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 71 71School performance and socio-economic background 493 200 -2 Disadvantage -1 0 1 PISA Index of socio-economic background 2 Advantage Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools 700 Student performance PISA Canada OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 72 72School performance and socio-economic background 493 200 -3 Disadvantage -2 -1 0 1 2 PISA Index of socio-economic background 3 Advantage Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools 700 Student performance PISA Finland OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 73 73School performance and socio-economic background 493 200 -3 Disadvantage -2 -1 0 1 2 PISA Index of socio-economic background 3 Advantage Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools 700 Student performance PISA Japan OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 74 74School performance and socio-economic background 493 200 -3 Disadvantage -2 -1 0 1 2 PISA Index of socio-economic background 3 Advantage Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools 700 Student performance PISA Shanghai-China OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 75 75School performance and socio-economic background 493 200 -3 Disadvantage -2 -1 0 1 2 PISA Index of socio-economic background 3 Advantage PISA 50 40 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 % 80 70 60 10 0 Shanghai-China Hong Kong-China Korea Macao-China Singapore Finland Japan Turkey Canada Portugal Chinese Taipei Poland New Zealand Spain Liechtenstein Estonia Netherlands Italy Switzerland Latvia Australia OECD average France Belgium Ireland Iceland Mexico United States Greece Thailand Croatia Tunisia Norway Hungary Sweden Slovenia Indonesia Denmark Chile United Kingdom Israel Colombia Germany Brazil Czech Republic Slovak Republic Luxembourg Lithuania Austria Russian Federation Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Serbia Jordan Albania Argentina Dubai (UAE) Romania Bulgaria Panama Montenegro Kazakhstan Peru Azerbaijan Qatar What students know and can do 30 20 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 76 76 Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students Resilient student: Comes from the bottom quarter of the socially most disadvantaged students but performs among the top quarter of students internationally (after accounting for social background) Less than 15% resilient students among disadvantaged students More than 30% resilient students among disadvantaged students Between 15%-30% of resilient students among disadvantaged students PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 77 77 Performance of students with an immigration background PISA Characteristics of schools attended by students with and without an immigrant background Percentage of students with an immigrant background Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD average OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 78 78 10.3 United Kingdom 10.6 United States 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percentage of schools with more than 25% of students with an immigrant backgroun 13.8 OECD average United Kingdom 12.6 United States 30.7 0 10 20 30 40 know and can do What students performance Mean reading PISA 400 350 300 500 450 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 550 Finland Hong Kong-China Singapore Canada New Zealand Australia Netherlands Belgium Norway Estonia Switzerland United States Liechtenstein Sweden Germany Ireland France Denmark United Kingdom Hungary OECD average Portugal Macao-China Italy Slovenia Greece Spain Czech Republic Croatia Israel Luxembourg Austria Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation Serbia Mexico Trinidad and Tobago Brazil Montenegro Jordan Argentina Kazakhstan Qatar Panama Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 79 79 Immigrants and reading performance Native Students Second-generation students First-generation students 600 Native students Second-generation students First-generation students Score point differences What students know and can do PISA -50 -100 50 Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 100 Qatar Dubai (UAE) Kyrgyzstan Serbia Israel Macao-China Kazakhstan Australia Hungary United States Hong Kong-China Jordan Montenegro Azerbaijan Canada rinidad and Tobago Singapore Croatia Latvia New Zealand Netherlands United Kingdom Argentina Czech Republic Liechtenstein Luxembourg Russian Federation Lithuania Slovenia Portugal OECD average Germany Switzerland France Norway Ireland Estonia Panama Greece Denmark Austria Sweden Belgium Spain Italy Finland Iceland Colombia Mexico OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 80 80 Reading performance by immigrant status 150 Native students perform better 0 Students with an immigrant background perform better PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 81 81 Percentage of students, by immigrant status and language spoken at home Mexico Finland Panama Italy Russian Federation Iceland Ireland Spain Greece Estonia Belgium Sweden Portugal Norway Jordan Denmark Macao-China Latvia Hong Kong-China OECD average New Zealand Liechtenstein Switzerland Germany Austria France Slovenia Luxembourg United Kingdom Trinidad and Tobago Singapore Netherlands Canada Czech Republic Australia Kazakhstan United States Israel Dubai (UAE) Qatar -150 Students who speak the language of assessment at home perform better Students who speak another language at home perform better -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 PISA Characteristics of schools attended by students with and without an immigrant background Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 School average PISA index of economic, social and cultural status OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 82 82 OECD average Austria 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 Index of quality of educational resources OECD average Austria 0.20 PISA Characteristics of schools attended by students with and without an immigrant background Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Student / teacher ratio OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 83 83 OECD average Austria 0.00 0.05 0.10 Index of teacher shortage 0.15 0.20 OECD average Austria -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 84 84 Does a more unequal society necessarily imply a more inequitable education system ? Qatar Hong Kong-China 5 Iceland Azerbaijan Indonesia Estonia Finland Japan Tunisia Jordan Norway Canada Montenegro Trinidad and Tobago Serbia Korea Albania Latvia Russian Federation Italy Kazakhstan Croatia Slovak Republic Brazil Czech Republic Ireland Greece Thailand Israel Lithuania Australia Netherlands OECD average Romania United Kingdom Sweden Spain Switzerland Poland Denmark Kyrgyzstan Slovenia Mexico Singapore Portugal Austria Colombia France United States New Zealand Luxembourg Germany Chile Panama Turkey Argentina Belgium Bulgaria Uruguay 10 15 20 25 High income equality High educational equity Macao-China Low income equality High educational equity OECD average Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 0 Percentage of explained variance in student performance PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 85 85 Low income equality Low educational equity Peru High income equality Low educational equity Hungary 30 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 Income inequality (Gini-coefficient) 0.25 0.2 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 86 86 Student engagement with school PISA Students' views of their teacherstudent relations Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD average OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 87 87 United Kingdom United States I get along well with most of my teachers. Most of my teachers are interested in my well-being. Most of my teachers really listen to what I have to say. If I need extra help, I will receive it from my teachers. 0 50 100 PISA Students’ view of climate for learning The following things happen never, rarely or only in some lessons… Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 United Kingdom OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 88 88 Japan Germany OECD average Students do not start working for a long time after the lesson begins The following things happen never, rarely or only in some lessons… Students cannot work well The teacher has to wait a long time for the students to quieten down There is noise and disorder % Students do not listen to what the teacher says 0 25 50 75 100 PISA School principals’ reports of their involvement in school matters Index of schools principal’s leadership based on school principals’ report (part 1/2) OECD average United Kingdom United States Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Professional development activities of teachers in accordance with the teaching goals of the school I ensure that teachers work according to the school’s educational goals OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 89 89 I observe instruction in classrooms I use student performance results to develop the school’s educational goals I give teachers suggestions as to how they can improve their teaching I monitor students’ work % When a teacher has problems in his/her classroom, I take the initiative to discuss matters 0 25 50 75 100 PISA School principals’ views of their involvement in school matters Index of schools principal’s leadership based on school principals’ report (part 2/2) OECD average United Kingdom United States Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 I inform teachers about possibilities for updating their knowledge and skills OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 90 90 I check to see whether classroom activities are in keeping with our educational goals I take exam results into account in decisions regarding curriculum development I ensure that there is clarity concerning the responsibility for coordinating the curriculum When a teacher brings up a classroom problem, we solve the problem together I pay attention to disruptive behaviour in classrooms % I take over lessons from teachers who are unexpectedly absent 0 25 50 75 100 PISA Students’ views of how well teachers motivate them to read Index of teachers’ stimulation of students’ reading engagement based on students’ reports United States United Kingdom OECD average Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 The teacher asks students to explain the meaning of a text OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 91 91 The teacher asks questions that challenge students to get a better understanding of a text The teacher gives students enough time to think about their answers The teacher recommends a book or author to read The teacher encourages students to express their opinion about a text The teacher helps students relate the stories they read to their lives % The teacher shows students how the information in texts builds on what they already know 0 25 50 75 100 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 92 92 Does it all matter? PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 93 93 Increased likelihood of postsec. particip. at age 19/21 associated with PISA reading proficiency at age 15 (Canada) after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother tongue, place of residence, parental, education and family income (reference group PISA Level 1) Odds ratio higher education entry 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Age 19 Age 21 Level 4 Age 21 Level 3 Level 2 Level 5 PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Ambitions and universal standards OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 94 94 Rigor, focus and coherence Great systems attract great teachers and provide access to best practice and quality professional development Challenge and support PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Strong support OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 95 95 Poor performance Strong performance Improvements idiosyncratic Systemic improvement Low challenge High challenge Poor performance Conflict Stagnation Demoralisation Weak support PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Ambitions and universal standards OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 96 96 Rigor, focus and Devolved coherence responsibility, the school as the centre of action Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to Great systems attract success great teachers and provide access to best practice and quality professional development PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Ambitions and universal standards OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 97 97 Rigor, focus and Devolved Integrated coherence responsibility, educational the school as the centre opportunities of action From prescribed Accountability forms of teaching and assessment towards Great systems attract personalised learning great teachers and provide access to best practice and quality professional development PISA Policy Policies and practices R R System E School Equity Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Learning climate OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 98 98 Discipline Teacher behaviour Parental pressure Teacher-student relationships Dealing with heterogeneity Grade repetition Prevalence of tracking Expulsions Ability grouping (all subjects) Standards /accountability Nat. examination PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 99 99 What does it all mean? PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 10 100 0 Some lessons from successful systems PISA A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body… … as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different Lessons from PISA expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity on successful Clear articulation who is responsible for education systems ensuring student success and to whom Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 102 2 What students know and can do 10 103 3 Grade repetition: 7% Grade repetition: 29% How school systems select and group students Students out of modal Students out of modal starting ages: 7% starting ages: 11% for schools, grades and programmes Schools transferring students due to low achievement or behavioural problems: 15%, and where students are grouped by ability for all subjects: 8% Low vertical differentiation Low horizontal differentiation at the school level Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment PISA Number of programmes: 1.1 First age of selection: 15.8 Selective schools: 17% Low horizontal differentiation at the system level Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation Schools transferring students due to low achievement or behavioural problems: 33%, and where students are grouped by ability for all subjects: 38% High vertical differentiation High horizontal differentiation at the school level Low horizontal differentiation at the school level High horizontal differentiation at the school level Jordan Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Tunisia, Uruguay Chile, Colombia, Peru Qatar, Romania, Chinese Taipei Mexico, Portugal Luxembourg, MacaoChina, Panama Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia Belgium, Germany, Trinidad and Tobago Netherlands, Switzerland Number of programmes: 3.0 First age of selection: 14.5 Ireland, Israel, Italy, Selective schools: 42% Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Japan, Korea, Medium horizontal differentiation at the system level Slovenia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Dubai (UAE), Hong KongChina, Montenegro, Shanghai-China, Number of Thailand programmes: 4.3 First age of selection: 11.2 Austria,61% Selective schools: High horizontal differentiation at the system level Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic, Croatia, Liechtenstein, Singapore PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 104 4 High reading performance 2009 High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low and average performance Early selection institutional differentiation Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High degree of stratification Low degree of stratification Low reading performance High social equity PISA Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved) High level of metacognitive Lessons from PISAcontent of instruction Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 105 5 on successful education systems PISA School autonomy, standardised exams and student performance PISA score in reading Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 500 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 106 6 490 School autonomy in resource allocation Schools with more autonomy 483 480 Systems with standards-based exams Systems without standards-based exams Schools with less autonomy PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 107 7 Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school PISA leaders and a work Lessons from organisation in which they can use their on successful potential Instructional leadership and human resource education systems management in schools Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development PISA Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures For students Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 108 8 How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well Lessons from PISA For teacherson successful Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation systems Improveeducation their own performance and the performance of their colleagues Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices A balance between vertical and lateral accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 10 109 9 How much autonomy individual schools have over resource allocation Selecting teachers for hire, OECD average United Kingdom Only "regional and/or national education authority" Firing teachers, OECD average United Kingdom Establishing teachers’ starting salaries, OECD average United Kingdom Both "principals and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority" Determining teachers’ salaries increases, OECD average United Kingdom Formulating the school budget, OECD average United Kingdom Only "principals and/or teachers" Deciding on budget allocations within the school, OECD average United Kingdom 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PISA How much autonomy individual schools have over curricula and assessment Establishing student assessment policies, OECD average Only "regional and/or national education authority" Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 United Kingdom OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 110 0 Choosing which textbooks are used, OECD average United Kingdom Both "principals and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority" Determining course content, OECD average United Kingdom Only "principals and/or teachers" Deciding which courses are offered, OECD average United Kingdom 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 111 1 How much autonomy individual schools have over resource allocation Selecting teachers for hire, OECD average United States Only "regional and/or national education authority" Firing teachers, OECD average United States Establishing teachers’ starting salaries, OECD average United States Both "principals and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority" Determining teachers’ salaries increases, OECD average United States Formulating the school budget, OECD average United States Only "principals and/or teachers" Deciding on budget allocations within the school, OECD average United States 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PISA How much autonomy individual schools have over curricula and assessment Establishing student assessment policies, OECD average Only "regional and/or national education authority" Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 United States OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 112 2 Choosing which textbooks are used, OECD average United States Both "principals and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority" Determining course content, OECD average United States Only "principals and/or teachers" Deciding which courses are offered, OECD average United States 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PISA Impact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without PISA score in reading accountability arrangements Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 500 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 113 3 School autonomy, accountability and student performance 495 490 School autonomy in resource allocation Schools with more autonomy 480 Schools with less autonomy Systems with more accountability Systems with less accountability School autonomy, accountability arrangements and science performance PISA PISA score in reading Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 5.0 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 114 on performance in systems with and without 4 The impact of school autonomy accountability arrangements -2.6 More school autonomy (1 index point) -5.0 Less school autonomy (-1 index point) Systems where schools post achievement data publicly (0%) Systems where schools post achievement data publicly (100%) System’s accountability arrangements School autonomy in resource allocation PISA How school systems are governed Schools competing with Schools competing with other schools: 73% Private schools: 8% Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Less school choice OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 115 5 Less school autonomy in curriculum and assessment More school autonomy in curriculum and assessment Establishing student assessment policies: 61% Greece,which Mexico,textbooks Portugal, Turkey, Choosing are Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, used: 55% Kazakhstan, Jordan, Montenegro, Qatar, Determining Serbia,course Tunisia,content: Uruguay 14% Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Establishing student Switzerland, Unitedassessment Kingdom, United policies: 92%Panama, Argentina, Brazil, States, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan,are Latvia, Choosing which textbooks Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Peru, Romania, used: 97% Russian Federation, Shanghai-China, Determining course content: 85% Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago other schools: 89% Private schools: 52% More school choice _ Australia, Belgium, Chile, Ireland, Korea, Netherlands, Dubai (UAE), Hong Kong-China, Indonesia, MacaoChina, Chinese Taipei PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 116 6 Schools competing with other schools: 73% Private schools: 8% Schools competing with other schools: 89% Private schools: 52% How school systems use student assessments Infrequent use of Establishing student assessment policies: achievement data for61% Choosing which textbooks are used:and 55% benchmarking Determining course content: 14% information purposes Deciding which courses are offered: 18% identified below Infrequent use of achievement data for decision making Frequent use of achievement data for decision making Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Belgium, Germany Denmark, Italy, Japan, Argentina, Macao-China, Chinese Taipei, Spain, Uruguay Establishing student assessment policies: 92% Choosing which textbooks are used: 97% Determining course content: 85% Deciding which courses are offered: 87% Frequent use of achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes identified below Hungary, Norway, Turkey, Montenegro, Tunisia, Slovenia Australia, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland, Israel, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Albania, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Croatia, Dubai (UAE), Hong KongChina, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Shanghai-China, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Serbia PISA Local responsibility and system-level prescription Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Trend in OECD countries OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 117 7 System-level prescription ‘Tayloristic’ work organisation Schools today The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do Schools tomorrow? Building capacity Finland today Every school an effective school Schools leading reform Teachers as ‘knowledge workers’ What students know and can do 11 118 8 Public and private schools Observed performance difference Government schools Government dependent private Government independent private % 20 40 60 80 Score point difference Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment PISA Australia Austria Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Argentina Brazil Hong Kong-China Indonesia Jordan Russian Federation Shanghai-China Singapore 0 Difference after accounting for socio-economic background of students and schools -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 100 Private schools perform better Public schools perform better PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 11 119 9 Bars present the average percentages of school competition in OECD Countries in which parents can choose countries, by four categories of school choice arrangements. schools for their children Prevalence of school competition by school choice arrangements More freedom to choose public schools: At most one restriction to choose public schools (region, district or other restrictions) Less freedom to choose public schools: At least two restrictions to choose public schools (region, district or other restrictions) Vouchers or Tax Credits to attend other schools No Vouchers or Tax Credits to attend other schools Vouchers or Tax Credits to attend other schools No Vouchers or Tax Credits to attend other schools Belgium, Chile, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Macao-China, Montenegro, Qatar, Singapore Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, Bulgaria, Colombia, Hong Kong-China, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Peru, ShanghaiChina Poland, the United States, Argentina, Thailand, Brazil, Chinese Taipei Iceland, Israel, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 12 120 0 Lessons from PISA on successful education systems Investing resources where they can make most of a difference Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms) Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 12 121 1 PISA A learning system OECD Programme for International Student Assessment An outward orientation of the system to keep Lessons from PISA the system learning, international benchmarks as the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ on of the system successful Recognising challenges and potential future education systems threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 12 122 Coherence of policies and practices of policies 2 Alignment across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control) from Lessons PISA on successful education systems PISA Student inclusion Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 Some students learn at high levels OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do Education reform trajectories 12 123 3 The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system All students need to learn at high levels Curriculum, instruction and assessment Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working Teacher quality Few years more than secondary High-level professional knowledge workers Work organisation ‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial Accountability Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do 12 124 4 Beyond schooling 20 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 120 100 0 Israel Singapore Belgium Qatar Macao-China Italy France Hong Kong-China Switzerland Denmark United Kingdom Liechtenstein Dubai (UAE) Greece Kyrgyzstan Uruguay Argentina Shanghai-China Germany Spain New Zealand Australia Slovak Republic Sweden Brazil Hungary Luxembourg Mexico Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Canada OECD average Chinese Taipei Indonesia Poland Iceland Kazakhstan Panama Romania Czech Republic Japan Tunisia Peru Austria Jordan Bulgaria Norway Albania Azerbaijan Russian Federation Colombia Portugal Chile United States Lithuania Turkey Serbia Montenegro Netherlands Ireland Slovenia Croatia Finland Korea Latvia Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 difference pointWhat Score students know and can do PISA 12 125 5 Performance difference between students who had attended preprimary school for more than one year and those who did not 80 60 40 Observed performance advantage Performance advantage after accounting for socio-economic factors PISA New Zealand Germany Qatar Hungary Denmark Korea Chile Panama 70 Italy Portugal Croatia Macao-China ong Kong-China Lithuania Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do Score point difference OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 12 126 6 Parental support at the beginning of primary school Score point difference between students whose parents often do (weekly or daily) and those who do not: “read books" 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PISA -10 Qatar Panama Italy Chile New Zealand Hungary Portugal Macao-China Korea Hong Kong-China Croatia Denmark Germany 60 Lithuania Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do Score point difference OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 12 Parental support at the beginning of 127 primary school 7 Score point difference between students whose parents often do (weekly or daily) and those who do not: "talk about what they had done" 50 40 30 20 10 0 PISA Qatar Italy New Zealand Denmark Chile Portugal Croatia Germany ong Kong-China Hungary Macao-China Korea Panama 35 Lithuania Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 What students know and can do Score point difference OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 12 128 8 Parental support at age 15 Score point difference between students whose parents often do (weekly or daily) and those who do not: "discuss books, films or televisions programmes" 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 PISA Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 12 129 9 Find out more about PISA at… OECD www.pisa.oecd.org – All national and international publications – The complete micro-level database U.S. White House www.data.gov Email: [email protected] Thank you ! … and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion PISA PISA 2009 results Five volumes released on 7 December Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do 13 130 0 Volume I, What Students Know and can Do: Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science Volume II, Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes Volume III, Learning to Learn: Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices Volume IV, What Makes a School Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices Volume V, Learning Trends: Changes in student Performance since 2000 One volume to be released in June 2011 Volume VI, Students On Line: Reading and Using Digital Information