Excellence and equity Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills
PISA in brief - 2015 In 2015, over half a million students - represen'ng 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies took an interna9onally agreed 2-hour test - Goes beyond tes'ng whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students capacity to extrapolate from what they know and crea'vely apply their knowledge in novel situa'ons - Total of 390 minutes of assessment material and responded to ques9ons on - their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their mo'va'on Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on: - school policies, prac'ces, resources and ins'tu'onal factors that help explain performance differences - 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
PISA 2015 OECD Partners
Science in PISA the ability to engage with sciencerelated issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen
Drag Ragworms and Common Sole into Tank 2 and Marsh Grass and Shellfish into Tank 3 This question requires students to understand a system and the role of several organisms within that system. In order to answer correctly, students must understand the goal of the fish farm, the function of each of the three tanks therein, and which organisms will best fulfill each function. Students must use information provided in the stimulus and the diagram, including a footnote under the diagram
570 550 530 Student performance Trends in science performance OECD 510 OECD average 490 470 450 2006 2009 2012 2015
570 Trends in science performance 550 530 Mass. 510 OECD average 490 470 450 2006 2009 2012 2015
Science performance in PISA (2015) Mean science performance 550 500 450 400 Higher perfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Estonia Chinese Tapei Macao (China) Vietnam B-S-J-G (China) New Zealand Germany Australia Belgium Switzerland Norway Poland Sweden Austria Spain Russia Italy CABA (Argentina) Lithuania Malta Chile United Arab Emirates Romania Turkey Moldova Thailand Qatar Mexico Jordan Brazil Tunisia FYROM Algeria Singapore Japan Finland Canada Hong Kong (China) Korea Slovenia United Kingdom Netherlands Ireland Portugal Denmark United States France Latvia Czech Rep. Luxembourg Hungary Croatia Iceland Israel Slovak Rep. Greece Bulgaria Uruguay Albania Trinidad and Tobago Costa Rica Colombia Montenegro Indonesia Peru Lebanon Kosovo High performance High equity Low performance High equity 350 25 20 15 More equity Dominican Rep. (332) 10 5 0
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015) Mean science performance 550 500 450 400 350 Higher perfomance Singapore Japan Macao (China) Chinese Tapei Finland Estonia Viet Nam Canada B-S-J-G (China) Slovenia New Zealand Netherlands Korea Hong Kong (China) Germany Australia United Kingdom Belgium Switzerland Portugal Poland Denmark France Austria Ireland United States Norway Czech Rep. Spain Sweden Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Croatia Lithuania Slovak Rep. Iceland Malta Israel Bulgaria Greece Chile Romania Uruguay Moldova Turkey United Arab Emirates Trinidad and Tobago Costa Rica Thailand Colombia Mexico Qatar Jordan Montenegro Indonesia Brazil Peru Tunisia Lebanon FYROM Kosovo Algeria Dominican Rep. (332) More equity Some countries combine excellence with equity
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015) Mean science performance 550 500 450 400 Higher perfomance High performance Low equity High performance High equity Japan Chinese Taipei Finland Estonia Macao (China) Canada New Zealand Slovenia Germany Australia Korea Hong Kong (China) Belgium Switzerland Netherlands United Kingdom Denmark France Portugal Ireland Poland United States Norway Czech Rep. Austria Spain Latvia Luxembourg Sweden Russia Italy Hungary Croatia Lithuania Iceland Israel Slovak Rep. Greece Chile Bulgaria Uruguay Romania Turkey Thailand Colombia Mexico Qatar Indonesia Jordan Montenegro Brazil Low performance Low performance Tunisia Low equity High equity Some countries improved performance or equity 350 25 More equity 20 15 10 5 Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS 0
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015) Mean science performance 550 500 450 Higher perfomance High performance Low equity Portugal Romania Colombia Norway High performance High equity Some countries improved performance 400 Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity 350 25 More equity 20 15 10 5 Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS 0
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015) Mean science performance 550 500 450 400 Higher perfomance High performance Low equity Low performance Low equity Chile Bulgaria Slovenia United States Thailand Mexico Brazil High performance High equity Montenegro Low performance High equity Some countries improved equity 350 25 More equity 20 15 10 5 Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS 0
Greater equity 700 USA 2006 USA 2015 PISA science scale 600 500 No difference 400 Significant difference 300-2 -1 0 1 2 ESCS
Poverty is not destiny - Science performance by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) 630 Figure I.6.7 580 Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile 530 OECD median student Score points 480 430 380 330 280 % of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS Dominican Republic 40 Algeria 52 Kosovo 10 Qatar 3 FYROM 13 Tunisia 39 Montenegro 11 Jordan 21 United Arab Emirates 3 Georgia 19 Lebanon 27 Indonesia 74 Mexico 53 Peru 50 Costa Rica 38 Brazil 43 Turkey 59 Moldova 28 Thailand 55 Colombia 43 Iceland 1 Trinidad and Tobago 14 Romania 20 Israel 6 Bulgaria 13 Greece 13 Russia 5 Uruguay 39 Chile 27 Latvia 25 Lithuania 12 Slovak Republic 8 Italy 15 Norway 1 Spain 31 Hungary 16 Croatia 10 Denmark 3 OECD average 12 Sweden 3 Malta 13 United States 11 Macao (China) 22 Ireland 5 Austria 5 Portugal 28 Luxembourg 14 Hong Kong (China) 26 Czech Republic 9 Poland 16 Australia 4 United Kingdom 5 Canada 2 France 9 Korea 6 New Zealand 5 Switzerland 8 Netherlands 4 Slovenia 5 Belgium 7 Finland 2 Estonia 5 Viet Nam 76 Germany 7 Japan 8 Chinese Taipei 12 B-S-J-G (China) 52 Singapore 11
Percentage of resilient students Figure I.6.10 % 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the ESCS index within their country/economy and perform among the top 25% across all countries/ economies, after accounting for socio-economic status Viet Nam Macao (China) Hong Kong (China) Singapore Japan Estonia Chinese Taipei B-S-J-G (China) Finland Korea Spain Canada Portugal United Kingdom Latvia Slovenia Poland Germany Australia United States Netherlands New Zealand Ireland OECD average Switzerland Denmark Belgium France Italy Norway Austria Russia Czech Republic Sweden Croatia Lithuania Turkey Malta Luxembourg Hungary Thailand Greece Slovak Republic Iceland Israel CABA (Argentina) Chile Uruguay Bulgaria Moldova Trinidad and Tobago Mexico Colombia Romania Indonesia Costa Rica Brazil Montenegro United Arab Emirates Jordan Georgia Algeria Lebanon Qatar Tunisia FYROM Peru Kosovo Dominican Republic
Excellence and baseline performance
The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective Figure I.2.18 Switzerland (9.8%) Portugal (7.4%) Belgium (9.0%) Sweden (8.5%) Singapore (24.2%) Spain (5.0%) Italy (4.1%) Netherlands (11.1%) Poland (7.3%); Australia (11.2%); Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k Canada (12.4%); 41k Russia (3.7%); 42k France (8.0%); 59k Finland (14.3%) Brazil (0.7%) New Zealand (12.8%) Israel (5.9%) Others United States (8.5%); 300k B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k Share of top performers among 15-year-old students: Less than 1% 1 to 2.5% 2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10% 10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15% More than 15% Korea (10.6%); 60k United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k Germany (10.6%); 79k Japan (15.3%); 174k
Science and careers
Expectations of a science career by gender Figure I.3.5 United States OECD average Science and engineering professionals Health professionals Information and communication technology (ICT) professionals Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Science-related technicians or associate professionals2 Girls Boys 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
Students expecting a career in science Figure I.3.2 % 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 % of students with vague or missing expecta'ons Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30 Science-related technicians and associate professionals Information and communication technology professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals Dominican Rep. 12 Costa Rica 11 Jordan 6 United Arab Em. 11 Mexico 6 Colombia 8 Lebanon 15 Brazil 19 Peru 7 Qatar 19 United States 13 Chile 18 Tunisia 19 Canada 21 Slovenia 16 Turkey 6 Australia 15 United Kingdom 17 Malaysia 4 Kazakhstan 14 Spain 11 Norway 21 Uruguay 17 Singapore 14 Trinidad and T. 13 Israel 25 CABA (Arg.) 19 Portugal 18 Bulgaria 25 Ireland 13 Kosovo 7 Algeria 12 Malta 11 Greece 12 New Zealand 24 Albania 29 Estonia 15 OECD average 19 Belgium 16 Croatia 17 FYROM 20 Lithuania 21 Iceland 22 Russia 19 HKG (China) 20 Romania 20 Italy 17 Austria 23 Moldova 7 Latvia 19 Montenegro 18 France 21 Luxembourg 18 Poland 13 Macao (China) 10 Chinese Taipei 21 Sweden 21 Thailand 27 Viet Nam 13 Switzerland 22 Korea 7 Hungary 22 Slovak Republic 24 Japan 18 Finland 24 Georgia 27 Czech Republic 22 B-S-J-G (China) 31 Netherlands 19 Germany 33 Indonesia 19 Denmark 48
Students expecting a career in science by performance and enjoyment of learning Figure I.3.17 Percentage of students expecting a career in science 50 40 30 20 10 Low enjoyment of science Moderate enjoyment of science High enjoyment of science J K L 0 300 400 500 600 700 Score points in science
Students enjoyment of learning science Figure I.3.9 Percentage of students who reported that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements OECD average United States I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in <broad science> I am interested in learning about <broad science> I generally have fun when I am learning <broad science> topics I am happy working on <broad science> topics I like reading about <broad science> 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
Above-average science performance Stronger than average epistemic beliefs Multiple outcomes Japan Estonia Finland Macao (China) Viet Nam B-S-J-G (China) Korea Germany Netherlands Switzerland Belgium Poland Norway Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Denmark Singapore Canada Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Ireland Portugal Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Jordan Kosovo United States Spain Israel United Arab Emirates Lebanon Mexico Peru Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uruguay Above-average percentage of students expec'ng to work in a science-related occupa'on Sweden Lithuania Croa9a Iceland Georgia Malta
High impact on outcomes Must haves Quick wins Lessons from PISA Low feasibility Money pits Low hanging fruits High feasibility Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes Capacity at point of delivery Must haves Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Resources where they yield most Coherence A learning system Incen've structures and accountability Lessons from PISA Low feasibility Money pits Gateways, instruc'onal systems Low hanging fruits High feasibility Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes Lessons from PISA Low feasibility Must haves Commitment to universal achievement Money pits Low impact on outcomes Quick wins A commitment to educa'on and the belief that Capacity competencies can be learned and therefore all at point of delivery children can achieve l Universal educa'onal standards and personaliza'on as the approach to engage with Coherence A learning system diversity Incen've structures and accountability as opposed to a belief that students have different des'na'ons to be met with different expecta'ons, and selec'on/stra'fica'on as the approach to heterogeneity Gateways, instruc'onal l Clear ar'cula'on who is responsible for ensuring systems student success and to whom Low hanging fruits Resources where they yield most High feasibility
Horizontal stratification: ability grouping Figure II.5.8 % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percentage of students in schools where students are grouped by ability into different classes: One form of grouping for all subjects One form of grouping for some subjects No ability grouping for any subject Moldova Georgia Brazil Greece Portugal Italy Uruguay Norway Austria Latvia Sweden Iceland Croatia France Peru Denmark Bulgaria Chile Chinese Taipei Belgium Russia Czech Republic Germany Turkey Lebanon CABA (Argentina) Slovak Republic Slovenia Hungary B-S-J-G (China) Dominican Republic Colombia Poland Estonia Indonesia Spain FYROM United Arab Emirates Costa Rica Albania Kosovo OECD average Romania Mexico Montenegro Jordan Lithuania Macao (China) Finland Japan Korea Tunisia Switzerland Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Algeria Netherlands Luxembourg Malta Thailand United States Viet Nam Canada Australia New Zealand Hong Kong (China) Singapore Ireland Israel United Kingdom
High impact on outcomes Lessons from PISA Low feasibility Capacity at point of delivery Coherence Must haves Commitment to universal achievement Money pits Low impact on outcomes Quick wins l Alignment of Incen've resources structures with key challenges and A learning system (e.g. a^rac'ng the accountability most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms) Effec've spending choices that priori'se high quality teachers over smaller classes High feasibility Gateways, instruc'onal systems Low hanging fruits Resources where they yield most Inves'ng resources where they can make most of a difference l
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance Figure II.6.2 Science performance (score points) 600 550 500 450 400 Australia Germany Slovenia Japan Chile Czech Rep. Korea Spain Canada Ireland New Zealand Poland Israel France Italy Croatia Latvia Slovak Rep. Portugal Lithuania Costa Rica Hungary Estonia Russia Belgium Mexico Brazil Bulgaria Uruguay Thailand Chinese Montenegro Dominican Taipei Republic Colombia 11.7, 411 Turkey Netherlands Singapore United Kingdom Finland Iceland Austria Norway Denmark United States Malta Sweden R² = 0.01 Switzerland Luxembourg Georgia R² = 0.41 350 Peru 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
Differences in educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Figure I.6.14 Mean index difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools 1 1 0-1 -1-2 -2-3 Index of shortage of educational material Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools Index of shortage of educational staff CABA (Argentina) Mexico Peru Macao (China) United Arab Emirates Lebanon Jordan Colombia Brazil Indonesia Turkey Spain Dominican Republic Georgia Uruguay Thailand B-S-J-G (China) Australia Japan Chile Luxembourg Russia Portugal Malta Italy New Zealand Croatia Ireland Algeria Norway Israel Denmark Sweden United States Moldova Belgium Slovenia OECD average Hungary Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Czech Republic Singapore Tunisia Greece Trinidad and Tobago Canada Romania Qatar Montenegro Kosovo Netherlands Korea Finland Switzerland Germany Hong Kong (China) Austria FYROM Poland Albania Bulgaria Slovak Republic Lithuania Estonia Iceland Costa Rica United Kingdom Latvia
Integra'ng immigrants
Student performance in science by immigrant background Figure I.7.4 600 Score points Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students 550 500 450 400 350 Greece Costa Rica Jordan CABA (Argentina) Israel Sweden France Slovenia Austria Germany Netherlands Denmark Italy Norway Belgium OECD average Spain Croatia United States Luxembourg Switzerland Qatar Portugal Russia United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Ireland Australia Estonia Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Canada Macao (China) Singapore
Percentage of immigrant students and education systems' average performance in science 600 Figure I.7.3 Mean science performance 550 500 450 400 350 Slovenia Singapore Portugal Estonia Canada Russia Australia Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Switzerland United States Austria Italy Croatia CABA (Argentina) Greece Israel Costa Rica Belgium Jordan Denmark Netherlands OECD average France Spain Germany Sweden Ireland United Kingdom 1.8, 332 R² = 0.09 Luxembourg United Arab Emirates Qatar Macao-China 300 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage of immigrant students
Percentage of resilient students by immigrant background Figure I.7.8 % Non-immigrant students Immigrant students 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Hong Kong (China) Macao (China) Estonia Singapore Spain Portugal Canada Switzerland United Kingdom Germany Slovenia Australia Netherlands New Zealand Austria Belgium OECD average Denmark Norway United States Ireland Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the ESCS index within their country/economy and perform among the top 25% across all countries/economies, after taking socio-economic status into account Sweden France Italy Russia Croatia Luxembourg Greece CABA (Argentina) Israel Costa Rica Jordan United Arab Emirates Qatar
Star'ng strong
Attendance at pre-primary school by schools socio-economic profile Table II.6.51 5 Number of years in pre-primary educa'on among students a^ending socio-economically Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools 4 Years 3 2 OECD average 1 0 Sweden Estonia Russia Latvia Bulgaria Iceland Norway Hungary Denmark Finland Singapore Israel Belgium Hong Kong (China) Spain Slovak Republic Uruguay France Macao (China) Brazil B-S-J-G (China) Japan Germany Czech Republic Lithuania Slovenia Thailand Austria Croa'a Italy Chinese Taipei OECD average Poland Peru Korea Mexico Luxembourg Greece Montenegro Dominican Republic New Zealand United Kingdom United States Switzerland Costa Rica Qatar United Arab Emirates Colombia Australia Canada Chile Ireland Tunisia Portugal Turkey
Must haves High impact on outcomes Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Capacity at the point of delivery Resources l A^rac'ng, developing and retaining high where quality they yield most Capacity teachers and school leaders and a work at point of delivery organisa'on in which they can use their poten'al l Instruc'onal leadership and human resource management in schools Incen've structures and Coherence A learning system l Keeping teaching an a^rac've profession accountability l System-wide career development Lessons from PISA Low feasibility Money pits Gateways, instruc'onal systems Low hanging fruits High feasibility Low impact on outcomes
Student-teacher ratios and class size Figure II.6.14 Student-teacher ratio 30 25 20 High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes OECD average Netherlands Peru Dominican Republic Brazil Mexico Colombia Chile Thailand Kosovo R² = 0.25 15 10 OECD average Switzerland Finland Belgium Denmark Malta United States Russia Poland Hungary Albania Algeria Jordan Hong Kong (China) Singapore Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Macao (China) Georgia Japan B-S-G-J (China) CABA (Argentina) Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes Turkey 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Class size in language of instruction
High impact on outcomes Capacity at point of delivery Must haves Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Resources where they yield most Coherence A learning system Incen've structures and accountability Lessons from PISA Clear ambi'ous goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instruc'onal systems Low feasibility l l Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instruc'onal systems, instruc'onal prac'ces and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved) High level of metacogni've Money pits content of instruc'on Low impact on outcomes Gateways, instruc9onal systems Low hanging fruits High feasibility
The produc'vity puzzle Making learning 'me produc've so that students can build their academic, social and emo'onal skills in a balanced way
Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23 PISA science score 600 550 500 450 400 350 OECD average Finland Japan Estonia Macao (China) New Zealand Netherlands Germany Switzerland Sweden Uruguay Iceland OECD average Israel Bulgaria Hong Kong (China) Singapore Chinese Taipei Korea Poland United States Russia Italy Greece Mexico Colombia Costa Rica Brazil Chile Turkey Montenegro Peru Dominican Republic Qatar OECD average Thailand B-S-J-G (China) R² = 0.21 Tunisia United Arab Emirates 300 35 40 45 50 55 60 Total learning time in and outside of school
Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23 Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands New Zealand Australia Czech Republic Macao (China) United Kingdom Canada Belgium France Norway Slovenia Iceland Luxembourg Ireland Latvia Hong Kong (China) OECD average Chinese Taipei Austria Portugal Uruguay Lithuania Singapore Denmark Hungary Poland Slovak Republic Spain Croatia United States Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand United Arab Emirates Tunisia Dominican Republic 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 Score points in science per hour of total learning time
Effec've teaching A well-structured, clear and informa've lesson on a topic including teachers explana'ons, classroom debates and students ques'ons pays off, as does adap've instruc'on Inquiry-based science instruc'on (e.g. experimenta'on and hands-on ac'vi'es) tends to relate nega'vely to performance but posi'vely to student engagement and career expecta'ons
High impact on outcomes Capacity at point of delivery Must haves Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Resources where they yield most Coherence A learning system Incen've structures and accountability Lessons from PISA Coherence of policies and prac'ces Low feasibility l Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system l l l Coherence of policies over sustained periods of 'me Consistency of implementa'on Fidelity of implementa'on (without excessive Money control) pits Low impact on outcomes Gateways, instruc'onal systems Low hanging fruits High feasibility
Looking forward
Some key ques9ons for social cohesion and sustainable development PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment How well are students prepared for life, ci'zenship and employment in mul'cultural socie'es and in a globalised world? To what degree are students able to examine contemporary issues? Are students able to understand and appreciate mul'ple cultural perspec'ves (including their own) and manage differences and conflicts? To what degree are students prepared to interact with others with respect for the inviolable rights and dignity of every individual? To what degree do students care about the world and take ac'on to make a difference?
PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment PISA defini9on of Global Competence Global Competence is the capacity to examine global and intercultural issues, to take mul'ple perspec'ves, to engage in open, appropriate and effec've interac'ons with people from different cultures and to act for collec've well-being and sustainable development.
Skills Evaluate evidence and explain issues Analyse perspec'ves Adapt communica'on and behaviour Evaluate ac'ons and consequences PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment A`tudes Openness Respect Global-mindedness Examine issues Interact across cultures Take perspec'ves Global Competence Act for wellbeing and sustainability Knowledge Knowledge of global issues Intercultural knowledge Values Valuing human dignity Valuing cultural diversity
The instruments PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment Cogni've test A test of «global and intercultural understanding» that covers the cogni've components of global competence (e.g. cri'cal reasoning with evidence, perspec've taking) Self-reported informa'on Self-reported data from students on the other components of global competence (e.g. openness, adaptability), and self-reported data from principals and teachers on ac'vi'es related to global and intercultural educa'on
Average school systems Some students learn at high levels à High performers in PISA All students learn at high levels Uniformity à Embracing diversity Curriculum-centred à Learner-centred Learning a place à Learning an ac'vity Prescrip'on à Informed profession Delivered wisdom à User-generated wisdom Provision Outcomes
Thank you Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa All publica9ons The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twi^er: SchleicherOECD Wechat: AndreasSchleicher