Au t horit y Ser vice Google Cloud Ce icate How to deploy ...
What Makes Schools and School Systems Successful … · What Makes Schools and School Systems...
Transcript of What Makes Schools and School Systems Successful … · What Makes Schools and School Systems...
OECD EMPLOYER
BRAND
Playbook
1
What Makes Schools and
School Systems
Successful
Lessons for the
GCC States
from PISA 2012
Tue Halgreen 4 March 2015
2 PISA in brief
• Over half a million students… – representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 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
– Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy
– Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… 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 .
3 The structure of the PISA assessment
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
Science Science Science Science Science
Problem Solving Digital Reading
Problem Solving, Financial literacy,
Digital Math, Digital reading
Singapore
Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei
Korea
Colombia
Japan
Peru
Switzerland
Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada
Poland Belgium
Germany Viet Nam
Austria Australia Ireland Slovenia
Brazil
New Zealand
Qatar
France United Kingdom
Argentina Tunisia
Indonesia
Norway Portugal Italy Spain
Russian Fed.
Jordan
United States Lithuania Sweden Hungary
Croatia Israel
Greece Serbia Turkey
Romania
Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand
Chile Malaysia
Mexico
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
Mean score
Fig I.2.13 3
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
… Shanghai-China is above this level (613)
Mean performance in mathematics – PISA 2012
Mathematics 2006 2009 2012
Qatar 318 368 376
United Arab Emirates 411 423
6 Qatar and UAE – Trends in PISA
Science 2006 2009 2012
Qatar 349 379 384
United Arab Emirates 429 439
Reading 2006 2009 2012
Qatar 312 372 388
United Arab Emirates 423 432
Figures in bold indicate a statistically significant annualised change
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100A
lban
iaF
inla
nd
Icela
nd
Sw
ede
nN
orw
ay
Denm
ark
Esto
nia
Ire
land
Spa
inC
ana
da
Pola
nd
Latv
iaK
aza
kh
sta
nU
nited
Sta
tes
Me
xic
oC
olo
mb
iaC
osta
Ric
aR
ussia
n F
ed.
Ma
laysia
Jo
rdan
New
Ze
ala
nd
Lithu
ania
Gre
ece
Mo
nte
neg
roU
nited
Kin
gd
om
Arg
en
tin
aA
ustr
alia
Bra
zil
Port
ug
al
Ind
one
sia
Chile
Thaila
nd
Rom
ania
Tunis
iaS
witze
rla
nd
Peru
Uru
gua
yC
roa
tia
U.A
.E.
Ma
ca
o-C
hin
aS
erb
iaV
iet N
am
Kore
aH
ong
Kon
g-C
hin
aS
inga
po
reA
ustr
iaIt
aly
Luxe
mb
ou
rgC
zech R
ep
ub
licJa
pa
nB
ulg
aria
Isra
el
Qata
rS
ha
ngh
ai-
Ch
ina
Germ
any
Slo
ven
iaS
lovak R
epu
blic
Turk
ey
Belg
ium
Hung
ary
Lie
ch
tenste
inN
eth
erla
nds
Chin
ese
Taip
ei
Variability in student mathematics performance
between and within schools Variation in s
tudent
perf
orm
ance
as
% o
f O
ECD
avera
ge v
ariation
Fig II.2.7
OECD average
OECD average
7
Performance variation of
students within schools
Performance differences
between schools
200
494
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
School performance and socio-economic background:
Finland 8
Advantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background
School performance and schools’ socio-economic background
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools
Stu
dent
perf
orm
ance
700
200
494
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
School performance and socio-economic background:
Qatar 9
Advantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background
School performance and schools’ socio-economic background
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools
Stu
dent
perf
orm
ance
700
200
494
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
School performance and socio-economic background:
United Arab Emirates 10
Advantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background
School performance and schools’ socio-economic background
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools
Stu
dent
perf
orm
ance
700
200
494
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
School performance and socio-economic background:
United Arab Emirates 11
Advantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background
School performance and schools’ socio-economic background
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools
Stu
dent
perf
orm
ance
700
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Qata
rU
.A.E
.A
ustr
alia
Th
aila
nd
Ma
ca
o-C
hin
aM
on
ten
eg
roIs
rael
Jo
rdan
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Serb
iaH
ung
ary
Ho
ng
Kon
g-C
hin
aS
inga
po
reS
lovak R
epu
blic
Cana
da
Ne
w Z
eala
nd
Ch
inese
Taip
ei
Lithu
ania
Kaza
kh
sta
nM
ala
ysia
Irela
nd
Turk
ey
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Cro
atia
Luxe
mb
ou
rgL
atv
iaC
hile
Co
sta
Ric
aA
rgen
tin
aR
ussia
n F
ed.
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
licO
EC
D a
ve
rag
eG
erm
any
Slo
ven
iaG
reece
No
rwa
yE
sto
nia
Icela
nd
Italy
Austr
iaN
eth
erla
nds
Spa
inF
ran
ce
Port
ug
al
Sw
ede
nL
iech
tenste
inD
enm
ark
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Belg
ium
Bra
zil
Fin
land
Me
xic
oC
olo
mb
iaP
eru
Sha
ngh
ai-
Ch
ina
Sco
re p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce
before accounting for students' socio-economic status
after accounting for students' socio-economic status
Differences in mathematics performance between
students without and with an immigrant background
Students without an immigrant
background perform better
Students with an immigrant
background perform better
Fig II.3.4 12
math teaching ≠ math teaching PISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ
and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures
13
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50V
iet N
am
Ma
ca
o-C
hin
aS
ha
ngh
ai-
Ch
ina
Turk
ey
Uru
gua
yG
reece
Hong
Kon
g-C
hin
aC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Port
ug
al
Bra
zil
Serb
iaB
ulg
aria
Sin
ga
po
reN
eth
erla
nds
Ja
pa
nA
rgen
tin
aC
osta
Ric
aL
ithu
ania
Tunis
iaN
ew
Ze
ala
nd
Czech R
ep
ub
licIs
rael
Kore
aL
atv
iaQ
ata
rIt
aly
United
Sta
tes
Esto
nia
Irela
nd
Austr
alia
Me
xic
oU
nited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Norw
ay
Ma
laysia
Kaza
kh
sta
nU
nited
Kin
gd
om
Ro
ma
nia
OE
CD
ave
rag
eA
lban
iaC
olo
mb
iaIn
do
ne
sia
Sw
ede
nB
elg
ium
Peru
Thaila
nd
Denm
ark
Ru
ssia
n F
ede
ratio
nC
ana
da
Slo
vak R
epu
blic
Hung
ary
Germ
any
Cro
atia
Luxe
mb
ou
rgM
on
ten
eg
roC
hile
Pola
nd
Fin
land
Austr
iaS
loven
iaF
ran
ce
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Jo
rdan
Lie
ch
tenste
inS
pa
inIc
ela
nd
Ind
ex
of
ex
po
su
re t
o w
ord
pro
ble
ms
Students' exposure to word problems Fig I.3.1a 14
Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to
students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50S
wede
nIc
ela
nd
Tu
nis
iaA
rgen
tin
aS
witze
rla
nd
Bra
zil
Luxe
mb
ou
rgIr
ela
nd
Neth
erla
nds
New
Ze
ala
nd
Costa
Ric
aA
ustr
iaL
iech
tenste
inM
ala
ysia
Ind
one
sia
Denm
ark
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Uru
gua
yL
ithu
ania
Germ
any
Austr
alia
Chile
OE
CD
ave
rag
eS
lovak R
epu
blic
Thaila
nd
Qata
rF
inla
nd
Port
ug
al
Colo
mb
iaM
exic
oP
eru
Czech R
ep
ub
licIs
rael
Italy
Belg
ium
Hong
Kon
g-C
hin
aP
ola
nd
Fra
nce
Spa
inM
on
ten
eg
roG
reece
Turk
ey
Slo
ven
iaV
iet N
am
Hung
ary
Bulg
aria
Kaza
kh
sta
nC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Cana
da
United
Sta
tes
Esto
nia
Rom
ania
Latv
iaS
erb
iaJa
pa
nK
ore
aC
roa
tia
Alb
an
iaR
ussia
n F
ede
ratio
nU
nited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Jo
rdan
Ma
ca
o-C
hin
aS
inga
po
reS
ha
ngh
ai-
Ch
ina
Icela
nd
Ind
ex
of
ex
po
su
re t
o f
orm
al m
ath
em
ati
cs
Students' exposure to conceptual understanding Fig I.3.1b 15
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50C
zech R
ep
ub
licM
aca
o-C
hin
aS
ha
ngh
ai-
Ch
ina
Vie
t N
am
Uru
gua
yF
inla
nd
Costa
Ric
aS
we
de
nJa
pa
nC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Italy
Isra
el
Norw
ay
Esto
nia
Ho
ng
Kon
g-C
hin
aA
ustr
iaS
erb
iaK
ore
aC
roa
tia
Latv
iaS
lovak R
epu
blic
Gre
ece
United
Kin
gd
om
Irela
nd
Luxe
mb
ou
rgB
elg
ium
Mo
nte
neg
roA
rgen
tin
aS
loven
iaB
ulg
aria
OE
CD
ave
rag
eL
ithu
ania
Hung
ary
Sw
itze
rla
nd
New
Ze
ala
nd
Germ
any
Tu
rke
yD
enm
ark
Ru
ssia
n F
ede
ratio
nS
inga
po
reIc
ela
nd
United
Sta
tes
Spa
inQ
ata
rL
iech
tenste
inP
ola
nd
Austr
alia
Fra
nce
Bra
zil
Ma
laysia
Peru
Cana
da
Chile
United
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Rom
ania
Tunis
iaN
eth
erla
nds
Port
ug
al
Colo
mb
iaA
lban
iaK
aza
kh
sta
nJo
rdan
Me
xic
oIn
do
ne
sia
Thaila
nd
Ind
ex
of
ex
po
su
re t
o a
pp
lie
d m
ath
em
ati
cs
Students' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.1c 16
430
450
470
490
510
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Me
an
sc
ore
in
ma
the
ma
tics
Index of exposure to applied mathematics
rarely sometimes frequently never
Relationship between mathematics performance
and students' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.2 17
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
Uruguay
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Chinese Taipei
Thailand Bulgaria
Jordan
Macao-China
UAE Argentina
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Peru
Costa Rica
Tunisia
Qatar
Singapore
Colombia
Malaysia
Serbia
Romania
Viet Nam
Shanghai-China
USA
Poland
New Zealand
Greece
UK
Estonia
Finland
Slovak Rep.
Luxembourg
Germany Austria
Czech Rep.
France
Japan
Turkey
Sweden
Hungary Australia
Israel
Canada
Chile
Belgium
Netherlands Spain
Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Slovenia
Portugal
Norway
Korea
Italy
R² = 0.13
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
(s
co
re p
oin
ts)
Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)
Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and
assessments tend to perform better in mathematics Fig IV.1.15
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements
School data not public
School data public464
466
468
470
472
474
476
478
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Score points
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment
x system's level of posting achievement data publicly
Fig IV.1.16
Money makes a difference – but only up to a point
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic Estonia
Israel
Poland
Korea
Portugal
New Zealand
Canada Germany
Spain
France
Italy
Singapore
Finland
Japan
Slovenia Ireland
Iceland
Netherlands
Sweden
Belgium
UK
Australia Denmark
United States
Austria
Norway
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Viet Nam
Jordan
Peru
Thailand
Malaysia
Uruguay
Turkey
Colombia
Tunisia
Mexico Montenegro
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Shanghai-China
R² = 0.01
R² = 0.37
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000
Ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
(sc
ore
po
ints
)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)
Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000
Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more
Fig IV.1.8
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
Uruguay
Croatia
Latvia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Bulgaria
Jordan
Macao-China
UAE
Argentina
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Peru
Costa Rica Montenegro
Tunisia
Qatar
Singapore
Colombia
Malaysia Serbia
Romania
Viet Nam
Shanghai-China
USA
Poland
New Zealand
Greece
UK
Estonia
Finland
Slovak Rep.
Luxembourg
Germany
Austria France
Japan
Turkey Sweden Hungary
Australia Israel
Canada
Ireland
Chile
Belgium
Spain Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Slovenia
Portugal Norway
Mexico
Korea
Italy
R² = 0.19
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
-0.500.511.5
Ma
the
ma
tics
perf
orm
an
ce
(sc
ore
po
ints
)
Equity in resource allocation (index points)
Countries with better performance in mathematics tend
to allocate educational resources more equitably
Greater
equity Less
equity
Adjusted by per capita GDP
Fig IV.1.11
30% of the variation in math performance across OECD countries is explained by the degree of similarity of
educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
PISA-Based Test for Schools Overview
Based on international PISA test of 15-year olds. All results are comparable to international PISA scales
Can be used by schools, networks of schools and districts
Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to apply their knowledge in novel situations
Provides information on students’ engagement and the learning environment at the school
PISA-Based Test for Schools What does the assessment look like?
• Experience for students similar to that of the main PISA tests: 2h test +30min questionnaire
• Three assessment domains: reading, maths, science
• Student sample size per school: 85
• A comprehensive (150 pages) school report for each participating school
Thank you !
Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org
• All national and international publications
• The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]