Where did Equity Improve

Where did equity improve?PISA webinar series

Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills

PISA in brief - 2015

In 2015, over half a million students…- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies

… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…- Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to

extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material

… and responded to questions on…- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation

Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded

PISA 2015 OECDPartners

350

400

450

500

550 SingaporeJapan

EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland Macao (China)CanadaViet Nam

Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSloveniaAustraliaUnited KingdomGermanyNetherlands

SwitzerlandIrelandBelgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance

SwedenCzech Rep. Spain Latvia RussiaLuxembourg ItalyHungary LithuaniaCroatia IcelandIsraelMaltaSlovak Rep.

GreeceChile

Bulgaria

United Arab EmiratesUruguayRomania

Moldova TurkeyTrinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico MontenegroJordanIndonesia BrazilPeru

LebanonTunisia

FYROM Kosovo AlgeriaDominican Rep. (332)

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Hig

her

perf

oman

ceScience performance and equity in PISA (2015)

Some countries combine excellence with equity

High performanceHigh equity

Low performanceLow equity

Low performanceHigh equity

High performanceLow equity

More equity

0510152025350

400

450

500

550

Brazil

BulgariaChile

Mexico Montenegro

Slovenia

Thailand

United States

Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

More equity

Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)

Some countries improved equity

Hig

her

perf

oman

ceHigh performance

High equity

Low performanceLow equity

Low performanceHigh equity

High performanceLow equity

-2 -1 0 1 2

300

400

500

600

700

ESCS

PISA

scie

nce

scal

e

USA 2006USA 2015

No difference

Significant difference

Greater equity

Poverty is not destiny - Science performanceby international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic 40

Koso

vo 1

0

FYRO

M 13

Mont

eneg

ro 1

1

Unite

d Ar

ab E

mira

tes 3

Leba

non

27Me

xico

53

Cost

a Ri

ca 3

8

Turk

ey 5

9

Thail

and

55

Icela

nd 1

Rom

ania

20

Bulg

aria

13

Russ

ia 5

Chile

27

Lithu

ania

12

Italy

15Sp

ain 3

1

Croa

tia 1

0

OECD

ave

rage

12

Malta

13

Maca

o (C

hina

) 22

Aust

ria 5

Luxe

mbo

urg

14

Czec

h Re

publ

ic 9

Aust

ralia

4

Cana

da 2

Kore

a 6

Switz

erlan

d 8

Slov

enia

5

Finlan

d 2

Viet

Nam

76

Japa

n 8

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

) 52

280

330

380

430

480

530

580

630

Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile

Scor

e po

ints

Figure I.6.7

% of students in the bottom international

deciles of ESCS

OECD median student

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A

Low impact on outcomes

High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A

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

Inequity in opportunity

Resources

Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance

Figure II.6.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200300

350

400

450

500

550

600

HungaryCosta Rica

Chinese Taipei

Chile

Brazil

Turkey

UruguayBulgaria

Mexico

Thailand MontenegroColombia Dominican Republic

Peru

Georgia

411.131522189847

Luxembourg

SwitzerlandNorwayAustria

Singapore

United States

United Kingdom

Malta

Sweden

Belgium

IcelandDenmark

Finland

Netherlands

Canada

JapanSlovenia

AustraliaGermany

IrelandFranceItaly

PortugalNew Zealand

Korea Spain

PolandIsrael

Estonia

Czech Rep.

LatviaSlovak Rep.

Russia

CroatiaLithuania

R² = 0.413999972734452

R² = 0.00700673877676472

Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)

Scie

nce

perf

orm

ance

(sc

ore

poin

ts)

Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Figure I.6.14

CABA

(Arg

entin

a)Pe

ruUn

ited

Arab

Em

irate

sJo

rdan

Braz

ilTu

rkey

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

icUr

ugua

yB-

S-J-G

(Chi

na)

Japa

nLu

xem

bour

gPo

rtuga

lIta

lyCr

oatia

Alge

riaIsr

ael

Swed

enMo

ldov

aSl

oven

iaHu

ngar

yVi

et N

amSi

ngap

ore

Gree

ceCa

nada

Qata

rKo

sovo

Kore

aSw

itzer

land

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)FY

ROM

Alba

nia

Slov

ak R

epub

licEs

toni

aCo

sta

Rica

Latv

ia

-3

-2

-1

0

1Index of shortage of educational material

Mea

n in

dex

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n ad

-va

ntag

ed a

nd d

isadv

anta

ged

scho

ols

Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools

Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools

Croati

a 16

Austr

ia

9

Chine

se Ta

ipei

8

Slova

k Rep

ublic

11

Switze

rland

8

Austr

alia

10

Greece

5

Monten

egro

6

Cana

da 1

4

Irelan

d 8

Italy

3

Japan

3

Qatar

5

Hong K

ong (

China

) 24

Brazil

8

Costa

Rica

3

Colom

bia

6

Singa

pore

1

Georgi

a 1

Roman

ia 2

Finlan

d 4

Spain

16

Alban

ia 2

Bulga

ria <

1

Israel

7

Denmark

1

Eston

ia <

1

Peru

1

Moldov

a 6

Latvia

1

Netherl

ands

16

Mexico

4

Macao (

China)

19

Icelan

d 3

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40Percentage-point difference between students in socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools who are required to attend at least one science course per week

Perc

enta

ge-p

oint

diff

eren

ceDifferences in the requirement to attend regular science lessons, by schools' socio-economic profile

Figure II.2.5

Students in socio-economically advantaged schools are more likely to be required to attend

at least one science course per week

Students in socio-economically disadvantaged schools are more likely to be required to attend at least one science course

per week

Percentage of students who are not required to attend any science course

0

5

10

15

20

25

After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profileBefore accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Science-specific resources at school and science performance

Figure II.2.7

Switz

erla

ndIce

land

Norw

ayNe

ther

land

sUr

ugua

yLe

bano

nBr

azil

Germ

any

Turk

eyCh

ileTu

nisia

Israe

lBe

lgiu

mTh

aila

ndMe

xico

Swed

enIre

land

Colo

mbi

aNe

w Ze

alan

dTr

inid

ad a

nd T

obag

oBu

lgar

iaMa

ltaCr

oatia

Slov

ak R

epub

licIn

done

siaHo

ng K

ong

(Chi

na)

Latv

iaDo

min

ican

Repu

blic

Lithu

ania

Hung

ary

Aust

ralia

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

)Al

bani

aEs

toni

aMo

ldov

a

0102030405060708090

100Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools

Science competitions offered at school, by schools' socio-economic profile

Figure II.2.10

%

Swed

enRus

sia

Bulgari

a

Norway

Denmark

Singa

pore

Belgium Sp

ain

Urugua

y

Macao

(Chin

a)

B-S-J-G

(Chin

a)

German

y

Lithu

ania

Thail

and

Croatia

Chines

e Taip

ei

Polan

dKo

rea

Luxe

mbourg

Monten

egro

New Zea

land

United

State

s

Costa

Rica

United

Arab Em

irates

Austra

liaChil

e

Tunis

iaTu

rkey

0

1

2

3

4


% st

uden

ts

Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically …

Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile

Table II.6.51

OECD average


Behaviour

Japa

n

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

)

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)

Neth

erla

nds

Belg

ium

Hung

ary

Swed

en

Switz

erla

nd

Aust

ria

Croa

tia

Norw

ay

Denm

ark

Gree

ce

Pola

nd

Unite

d Ar

ab E

mir.

..

Esto

nia

Irela

nd

Latv

ia

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Aust

ralia

Thai

land

Finla

nd

Cost

a Ri

ca

Qata

r

Bulg

aria

Braz

il

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic

Italy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-20-15-10-505

101520

Percentage of students who had skipped a whole day of school at least once in the two weeks prior to the PISA testSpalte2

Perc

enta

ge-p

oint

diff

eren

ce %

Students skipping a whole day of school, by schools’ socio-economic profile

Figure II.3.3

Students in advantaged schools skipped a whole day of school more

often

Students in disadvantaged schools skipped a whole day of school more often

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profileBefore accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning and science performance

Figure II.3.10

05

10152025303540

After accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schoolsBefore accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schoolsz-scores

Explaining students' expectations of a career in scienceFigure II.2.22

Science-specific resources

Science activities Learning time Teaching strategies in science lessons

C

onfid

ence

No association


Policy and practice

First

age

at s

elec

tion

in th

e ed

ucat

ion

sy...

Reco

mm

enda

tion

of fe

eder

scho

ols a

lway

s...

Stud

ent’s

reco

rd o

f aca

dem

ic pe

rform

ance

...

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s in

voca

tiona

l or .

..

Mean

scor

e in

scie

nce

Num

ber o

f sch

ool t

ypes

or e

duca

tiona

l ...

Abili

ty g

roup

ing

betw

een

class

es fo

r all

su...

Varia

tion

in sc

ienc

e pe

rform

ance

Grad

e re

petit

ion

(at l

east

onc

e)

-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.5

Stan

dard

ised

regr

essio

n co

efficie

nts

Factors associated with equity in science performance

Figure II.5.13

More equity in science performance

Less equity in science performance

First age at selection in the education system and index of teacher support in science lessons

Figure II.3.11

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17-0.6

-0.4

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

10

Austria

Belgium

84

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

12

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

5

Ireland

IsraelItaly Japan

Korea Latvia

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

9

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

SpainSweden

Switzerland

Turkey 11

3

Albania

Brazil

B-S-J-G (China)

Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

Croatia

Dominican Rep.

FYROM

Georgia

Hong Kong

Indonesia

1

LithuaniaMacao (China)

7

Montenegro

26

Romania

Russia

Singapore

Chinese Taipei

Thailand

United Arab Emirates

UruguayViet Nam

R² = 0.360338547715815

First age at selection in the education system

Inde

x of

tea

cher

sup

port

in s

cien

ce le

sson

s

1. Jordan2. Peru3. United States4. Chile5. Iceland6. Qatar7. Malta8. Canada9. New Zealand10. Australia11. United Kingdom12. Finland

In education systems with early tracking students are less likely to report that their science teachers support students in their learning

Low expenses as a reason for choosing school, by schools’ socio-economic status

Figure II.4.17

Scot

land

(UK)

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic

Mexi

co

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)

Maca

o (C

hina

)

Italy

Kore

a

OECD

ave

rage

Germ

any

Belg

ium

(Fle

mm

ish)

Fran

ce

Geor

gia

Irela

nd

Portu

gal

Chile

Croa

tia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Spai

n

Malta

-50-40-30-20-10

0102030

0102030405060708090100

Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schoolsPercentage of parents who consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important"

Perc

enta

ge-p

oint

diff

eren

ce

%Low expenses are more

important for parents whose children attend advantaged

schools

Low expenses are more important for parents whose

children attend disadvantaged schools

Luxe

mbo

urg

Belg

ium

(Fle

mm

ish)

Portu

gal

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)

Malta

Italy

Germ

any

Irela

nd

OECD

ave

rage

Geor

gia

Maca

o (C

hina

)

Croa

tia

Chile

Spai

n

Mexi

co

Kore

a

Scot

land

(UK)

Fran

ce

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic

-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10

01020

After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Schools’ low expenses as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance

Figure II.4.17

Students whose parents consider schools' low expenses

"important" or "very important” perform lower

Students whose parents consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important” perform

higher

School reputation as a reason for choosing school, by schools’ socio-economic status

Figure II.4.18

Maca

o (C

hina

)

Kore

a

Italy

Croa

tia

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)

Mexi

co

Belg

ium

(Fle

mm

ish)

Portu

gal

Fran

ce

OECD

ave

rage

Scot

land

(UK)

Chile

Irela

nd

Malta

Luxe

mbo

urg

Spai

n

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic

Geor

gia

Germ

any-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0102030405060708090100

Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schoolsPercentage of parents who consider school reputation "important" or "very important"

Perc

enta

ge-p

oint

diff

eren

ce

%

School reputation is more important for

parents whose children attend advantaged

schools

School reputation is more important for parents whose children attend

disadvantaged schools

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)

Geor

gia

Kore

a

Maca

o (C

hina

)

Mexi

co

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic

Chile

Portu

gal

Malta

Italy

Croa

tia

Spai

n

OECD

ave

rage

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irela

nd

Fran

ce

Belg

ium

(Fle

mm

ish)

Scot

land

(UK)

-40-30-20-10

0102030405060


Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

School reputation as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance

Figure II.4.18

Students whose parents consider school reputation "important" or "very important“

perform higher

Students whose parents consider school reputation "important" or "very important“

perform lower

Colo

mbi

aBr

azil

Urug

uay

Tuni

siaBe

lgiu

mMa

cao

(Chi

na)

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Cost

a Ri

caSp

ain

Portu

gal

Luxe

mbo

urg

Peru

Chile

Fran

ceNe

ther

land

sSw

itzer

land

Germ

any

Qata

rHo

ng K

ong

(Chi

na)

Indo

nesia

Mexi

coAu

stria

Italy

Unite

d Ar

ab E

mir.

..OE

CD a

vera

geUn

ited

Stat

esTu

rkey

Hung

ary

Israe

lJo

rdan

Irela

ndAu

stra

liaMa

ltaSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Thai

land

Rom

ania

Cana

daSi

ngap

ore

Pola

ndLa

tvia

Gree

ceNe

w Ze

alan

dBu

lgar

iaCz

ech

Repu

blic

Swed

enEs

toni

aDe

nmar

kMo

ldov

aFin

land

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mAl

bani

aLit

huan

iaSl

oven

iaMo

nten

egro

Croa

tiaRu

ssia

Geor

gia

Icela

ndCh

ines

e Ta

ipei

05

101520253035404550

PISA 2015 PISA 2009% students

Change between 2009 and 2015 in grade repetition rates

Figure II.5.5

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.60.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Incr

ease

d lik

eliho

od o

f hav

ing

repe

ated

a g

rade

(odd

s ra

tio)

Students' socio-economic profile and grade repetition

Figure II.5.7

Students with a higher socio-economic status are more likely to have repeated a grade

Students with a higher socio-economic status are less likely to have repeated a grade

Croa

tiaAu

stria

Slov

enia

Italy

Mont

eneg

roFY

ROM

Bulg

aria

Belg

ium

Neth

erla

nds

Chin

ese

Taip

eiJa

pan

Hung

ary

Gree

ceKo

rea

Fran

ceKo

sovo

Turk

eyCz

ech

Repu

blic

OECD

ave

rage

Aust

ralia

Portu

gal

CABA

(Arg

entin

a)Lu

xem

bour

gTh

aila

ndSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Colo

mbi

aMe

xico

Russ

iaSw

itzer

land

Indo

nesia

Alba

nia

Cost

a Ri

caGe

rman

yLit

huan

iaGe

orgi

aMa

cao

(Chi

na)

Irela

ndUr

ugua

yAl

geria

Spai

nCh

ileLa

tvia

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

)Un

ited

King

dom

Braz

ilEs

toni

aUn

ited

Arab

Em

ir...

Pola

ndDo

min

ican

Repu

blic

Swed

en

0102030405060708090


Enrolment in pre-vocational or vocational programmes, by schools’ socio-economic profile

Figure II.5.9

%

Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 505

10

15

20

25

30

CABA (Argentina)

JordanViet Nam

Poland

United States

Chile

Denmark

Hungary

B-S-G-J(China) Turkey

Georgia

ChineseTaipei

Mexico

Russia

Albania

Hong Kong(China)

Japan

Belgium

Algeria

Colombia

Peru

Macao(China)

Switzerland

Malta

Dominican Republic

Netherlands

Singapore

Brazil

Kosovo

Finland

ThailandR² = 0.24784962376208

Class size in language of instruction

Stud

ent-

teac

her

ratio High student-teacher

ratios and small class sizes

Low student-teacher ratios and large class

sizes

OECD average

OE

CD

ave

rage


Governance

Turk

eyVi

et N

amTu

nisia

Chin

ese

Taip

eiGr

eece

Czec

h Re

publ

icEs

toni

aFr

ance

CABA

(Arg

entin

a)Me

xico

Indo

nesia

Swed

enMa

ltaLa

tvia

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

)Sl

oven

iaUn

ited

King

dom

Norw

ayCr

oatia

Peru

Cost

a Ri

caCh

ileKo

rea

Cana

daIre

land

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Germ

any

Leba

non

Pola

ndUn

ited

Arab

Em

irate

s-100-80-60-40-20

0204060


Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Science performance in public and private schools

Figure II.4.14

Students in private schools perform better

Students in public schools perform better

Unite

d Ar

ab E

mira

tes

Malta

Urug

uay

Jord

anQa

tar

Braz

ilCo

lom

bia

Sing

apor

eB-

S-J-G

(Chi

na)

Viet

Nam

Israe

lTr

inid

ad a

nd T

obag

oHo

ng K

ong

(Chi

na)

Koso

voFY

ROM

Fran

ceAu

stria

Swed

enUn

ited

Stat

esBe

lgiu

mMa

cao

(Chi

na)

Finla

ndMo

ldov

aTh

aila

ndAl

geria

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mTu

nisia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Icela

ndLit

huan

iaEs

toni

aRo

man

iaCr

oatia

Pola

ndCo

sta

Rica

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools %

Perc

enta

ge-p

oint

diff

eren

ceIndex of school autonomy, by schools’ socio-economic status

Figure II.4.7

Advantaged schools have more school autonomy

Disadvantaged schools have more school autonomy

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance and science performance

Figure II.4.8

Lower science

performance

Higher science performance

Students score lower in science when the school governing board

holds more responsibility for admissions policies

School principal Teachers School governing board

Local or regional education authority

National education authority

Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa– All publications– The complete micro-level database

Email: [email protected]: SchleicherOECDWechat: AndreasSchleicher

and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

Thank you