pisa 2012 strong performers and successful reformers in education - lessons for peru

OECD EMPLOYER BRAND

Playbook

1

PISA 2012Strong performers and successful reformers in educationLessons for Peru

Andreas SchleicherPeru, February 2014

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 .

What do 15-year-olds know……and what can they do with what they know?

Students in Peru still perform at low levels, but significant gains in reading skills show that improvement is possible

3

4 Change in performance between PISA 2003 and 2012

350 400 450 500 550 600-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Brazil

Tunisia

Mexico

Uruguay

Turkey

Greece

Italy

Portugal

Hungary

Poland

Slovak Republic

OECD average

Germany

Sweden

France

Denmark

Iceland

Czech Republic

New ZealandAustralia

Macao-China

Belgium

Canada

Netherlands

Finland

Hong Kong-China

Average mathematics performance in PISA 2003

Av

era

ge

an

nu

al m

ath

em

ati

cs

sc

ore

ch

an

ge

Imp

rov

ing

pe

rform

an

ce

De

terio

ratin

g p

erfo

rma

nc

e

PISA 2003 performance below the OECD averagePISA 2003 performance

above the OECD average

Fig I.2.18

Peru (M)

Peru (R)

Performance of countries in a level playing field

How the world would look if students around the world were living in similar social and economic conditions

5

6

Shang

hai-C

hina

Hong

Kong-

China

Viet N

amKor

ea

Liec

hten

stein

Switzer

land

Nethe

rland

s

Belgi

um

Canad

a

Austri

a

New Z

eala

nd

Franc

e

Irela

nd

OECD ave

rage

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Hunga

ryIta

ly

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Lith

uani

a

Unite

d Sta

tes

Sweden

Roman

ia

Serbi

a

Greec

eChi

le

Mal

aysia

Cypru

s5, 6

Costa

Rica

Brazil

Tunisi

aPer

u

Colom

biaQat

ar340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

Mean score at the country level before adjusting for socio-economic statusMean score at the country level after adjusting for socio economic status

Me

an

ma

the

ma

tic

s s

co

reMathematics performance in a level playing fieldMean mathematics performance after accounting for socio-economic status

Fig II.3.3

The dream of social mobility

In some countries it is close to a reality

7

Pe

ru

Me

xico

Ind

on

esi

a

Co

lom

bia

Tu

rke

y

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Au

stra

lia

Vie

t Na

m

Sh

an

gh

ai-

Ch

ina

Ro

ma

nia

Isra

el

Ch

ine

se T

aip

ei

Ire

lan

d

Tu

nis

ia

Ca

na

da

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

.

Be

lgiu

m

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Lith

ua

nia

Ka

zakh

sta

n

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Est

on

ia

Slo

ven

ia

Sin

ga

po

re

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Ko

rea

Se

rbia

No

rwa

y

Fin

lan

d

Alb

an

ia

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools

Me

an

ind

ex

dif

fere

nc

eEducational resources are more problematic in disadvantaged schools in most countries

Advantaged and private schools reported better educational resources

Disadvantaged and public schools reported better educational resources

Fig IV.3.8

9 Social background and school performance - Peru

Below level 1

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

PISA index of social, economic and cultural status

Private school

Public school in rural area

Public school in urban area

B

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3200

494

Score

700

10

Shang

hai-C

hina

Mac

ao-C

hina

Singa

pore

Chine

se T

aipe

i

Liec

hten

stein

Estoni

a

Polan

d

Finl

and

Portu

gal

Turk

ey Italy

Latvi

a

Austra

lia

Austri

a

Czech

Rep

ublic

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Fran

ce

Icela

nd

Russia

n Fe

d.

Croat

ia

Sweden

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Serbi

aIsr

ael

Roman

ia

Indo

nesia

Kazak

hsta

n

Brazil

Chile

Mon

tene

gro

Argen

tina

Peru

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

%

Percentage of resilient students

More than 10% resilient Between 5%-10% of resilient students Less than 5%

Fig II.2.4

Socio-economically disadvantaged students not only score lower in mathematics, they also report lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and share many characteristics of advantaged high-achievers.

It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods…

…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods

11

12

Alban

ia

Icela

nd

Norway

Estoni

a

Spain

Polan

d

Kazak

hsta

n

Mex

ico

Costa

Rica

Mal

aysia

New Z

eala

nd

Greec

e

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Austra

lia

Portu

gal

Chile

Roman

ia

Switzer

land

Urugu

ay

U.A.E

.

Serbi

a

Korea

Singa

pore

Italy

Czech

Rep

ublic

Bulga

riaQat

ar

Germ

any

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Belgi

um

Liec

hten

stein

Chine

se T

aipe

i100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Variability in student mathematics performance between and within schools

Vari

ati

on

in

stu

den

t p

erf

orm

an

ce a

s %

of

OEC

D a

vera

ge

vari

ati

on

Fig II.2.7

OECD average

OECD average

Performance variation of students within schools

Performance differences between schools

13 Gender differences in mathematics performance Fig I.2.25

Jord

an

Thaila

nd

Icela

nd

Latvi

a

Finla

nd

Bulga

ria

Alban

ia

Lith

uani

a

Norway

Slove

nia

Polan

d

Unite

d Sta

tes

Chine

se T

aipe

i

Belgi

um

Greec

e

Hunga

ry

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Canad

a

OECD ave

rage

Urugu

ayIsr

ael

Austra

lia

Switzer

land

Argen

tina

Mex

ico

Tunisi

a

Hong

Kong-

China

Brazil

Korea

Peru

Liec

hten

steinChi

le

Colom

bia

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Sc

ore

-po

int

dif

fere

nc

e (

bo

ys

-gir

ls)

Boys perform better than girls

Girls perform better than boys

1414Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers

Catching up with the top-performers

Low impact on outcomes

High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins

1515Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




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

1616Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve

Universal educational standards and personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body…

… as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity

Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom

17

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

481.366786279212

517.501096817955

561.241096454551

391.459888954175

499.749902827587

452.973426858907

409.291567937716

493.934230896316

520.545521676786518.750335282979

394.329333356314

471.131460759248

490.571021411359

481.644744006327489.845098037208

513.525055819928

478.823277433358

505.540743249801

498.95788231768

559.824796201498

494.98467432064426.737491293011

536.406918234208

447.984414978954 478.260635903011

477.044455015488504.150766311124

466.48143014931

518.078519433354

501.497460196644438.738259877415

385.595556395556

422.632355405519

538.134494733918

U.A.E.

514.745238582901522.971758192682

484.319297801971

388.431709907139

375.114451681749

500.026756625414

431.798408505078

368.102547127357

406.999866988793

530.931003950397

409.626613284347

387.824629620249

492.795697239492

501.127422390953

376.4483986347

573.468314296641

487.063181343903

489.373070348755

376.488601072821

420.512967619054

413.281466667708

534.96508297892

553.766659143613

448.859130247604

Russian Fed.

444.554242787643

511.338207501182

485.321181012553

612.675536305453

f(x) = 138.160916953927 x + 477.587612682211R² = 0.368631715648504

Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy

Me

an

ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

OE

CD

av

era

ge

Countries where students have stronger beliefsin their abilities perform better in mathematics

Fig III.4.5

18Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

I’m not very good at solving mathematics problems

My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week

This week I made bad guesses on the quiz

Sometimes the course material is too hard

The teacher did not get students interested in the material

Sometimes I am just unlucky

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Peru Shanghai-China OECD average

%

Fig III.3.6

USB

The parent factorStudents whose parents have high educational expectations for them tend

to report more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics, and more confidence in their own ability to solve mathematics problems than students of similar background and academic performance,

whose parents hold less ambitious expectations for them.

19

20

Ge

rma

ny

Be

lgiu

m (

Fle

mis

h)

Me

xico

Ch

ile

Po

rtu

ga

l

Italy

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Cro

atia

Ko

rea

Hu

ng

ary

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Percentage-point change in arriving late for school that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Pe

rce

nta

ge

-po

int

ch

an

ge

Parents’ expectations for their child have a strong influence on students’ behaviour towards school

Fig III.6.11

21

Be

lgiu

m (

Fle

mis

h)

Ko

rea

Italy

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Ch

ile

Po

rtu

ga

l

Hu

ng

ary

Cro

atia

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

Me

xico

Ge

rma

ny

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Change in the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics that is asso-ciated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Me

an

ind

ex

ch

an

ge

Parents’ high expectations can nurture students’ enjoyment in learning mathematics

Fig III.6.11

22

Po

rtu

ga

l

Italy

Be

lgiu

m (

Fle

mis

h)

Me

xico

Hu

ng

ary

Ch

ile

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Ge

rma

ny

Cro

atia

Ko

rea

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Change in the index of perseverance that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree

Me

an

ind

ex

ch

an

ge

Parents’ high expectations can fosterperseverance in their child

Fig III.6.11

2323Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







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 content of instruction …

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

16.189517576692215.9850747071189

8.94298730043792

14.5103704379586

18.4637610178288

15.4116747903208

21.7327517076696

13.0142695715782

8.01694497238556

9.93467291755881

11.2733452344148

13.8320502979256

24.2251116061424

22.5527895097349

17.6139348422406

12.9845368351081

16.7334859967187

15.9289096073137

18.0143076496533

22.9207376480545

8.5290756532660910.3264885893309

13.5527046032089

11.443350168788

22.470830498566

13.291103816885

17.0271187236138

10.3150446113391

15.5700234896146

21.2229655377876

6.64859989341307

22.2199985243645

5.07004102502427

11.2380863321592

15.6942484072018

12.5160259592785

16.045256257081

14.1300739792362

7.78361781969313

17.4135436775297

6.72909493054534

21.9781912018341

17.5738156722987

14.4117397862951

11.5830242259438

10.91711024292268.23674152288972

15.4288114033448

9.32792641718122

16.662721693931

19.4288335709035

8.62271043822466

14.0040840587445

9.4223382225445610.1227212309129

10.440368257501210.7696501190869

18.2228912797887

12.7948520723607

10.3950432847876

14.3305703089692

Adjusted by per capita GDP Linear (Adjusted by per capita GDP)

Percentage of students who have repeated at least one grade

Va

ria

tio

n in

ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

ex

pla

ine

d b

y s

oc

io-

ec

on

om

ic s

tatu

s (

%)

Grade repetition is negatively related to equity Fig IV.1.4

R2=0.05

Greater equity

Less equity

R2=0.07

Jap

an

No

rwa

y

Est

on

ia

Ice

lan

d

Isra

el

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Slo

ven

ia

Po

lan

d

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Ko

rea

Sw

ed

en

Fin

lan

d

De

nm

ark

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Au

stra

lia

Ca

na

da

Ire

lan

d

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Au

stri

a

Italy

Po

rtu

ga

l

Ge

rma

ny

Sp

ain

Fra

nce

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Be

lgiu

m

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Total cost per repeater (one grade year)Total annual cost, relative to total expenditure on primary and secondary education (%)

US

D, P

PP

s

%

Grade repetition is an expensive policy Fig IV.1.5

2626Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality

teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential

Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools

Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development …

FIN

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Th

aila

nd

Sh

an

gh

ai-

Ch

ina

Co

lom

bia

Ch

ile

Me

xico

Vie

t Na

m

Uru

gu

ay

Ka

zakh

sta

n

Be

lgiu

m

Ma

lays

ia

Bra

zil

U.A

.E.

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Arg

en

tina

Au

stri

a

Ire

lan

d

Fra

nce

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Alb

an

ia

Ca

na

da

La

tvia

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Cro

atia

Mo

nte

ne

gro

Hu

ng

ary

Slo

ven

ia

Se

rbia

Bu

lga

ria

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Bottom quarter of this index

Me

an

ind

ex

Teacher shortage Fig IV.3.5

Sin

ga

po

re

Au

stra

lia

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Slo

ven

ia

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Po

lan

d

Be

lgiu

m

Au

stri

a

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Hu

ng

ary

Lith

ua

nia

Uru

gu

ay

Ge

rma

ny

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Sp

ain

De

nm

ark

No

rwa

y

Ma

lays

ia

Gre

ece

Ch

ile

Alb

an

ia

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

.

Mo

nte

ne

gro

Bra

zil

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Th

aila

nd

Ind

on

esi

a

Co

sta

Ric

a

Tu

nis

ia

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Bottom quarter of this index

Me

an

ind

ex

Adequacy of educational resources Fig IV.3.8

2929Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures

For students 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

For teachers Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation Improve 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

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

531.551979302783

414.947431329217

430.53288984921

423.795593172672

484.685067484024

507.375949559565

493.913526079401

557.719613495498

454.493852942216459.674291542381

419.468595641077

488.357558008343

404.86657067849406.81928697245

410.692469685374

455.967032005237

396.468122669645

431.953772561969

416.098738598916

300.849653448456

527.668467891543

404.539944308878

440.111661967012

474.054187560775

464.989161819408

547.743708881437

626.566663790363

452.789179885987

529.511834268283

497.071637137884

453.49524309675

482.577394045123

532.465311188924

506.274697797594

488.818411796174

402.907104971934

498.55233132561486.358212456265

502.809277446549

485.011835724539

525.143096315803

466.514022482625

460.853234111852

488.150072840935484.3703865799

468.514073102546

499.317279833724

438.810335285436

499.440165643771501.844010272146

478.664970193416480.554307802789

498.658254792673

481.116171960251

503.011259906496

490.67709912419

463.432481043829

552.313972933536

478.845972683071R² = 0.133981453407518

Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)

Ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

(s

co

re p

oin

ts)

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 collaboration

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

Teachers don't participate in management

Teachers participate in management

Score points

School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school managementAcross all participating countries and economies

Fig IV.1.17

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

No standardised math policy

Standardised math policy

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials)

Fig IV.1.16

Fin

lan

d

Sh

an

gh

ai-

Ch

ina

Au

stri

a

Arg

en

tina

Uru

gu

ay

Ge

rma

ny

Sp

ain

Ch

ine

se T

aip

ei

Ire

lan

d

Ind

on

esi

a

Cro

atia

Ice

lan

d

La

tvia

Lie

chte

nst

ein

Ma

lays

ia

Italy

Me

xico

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

U.A

.E.

Isra

el

Qa

tar

Co

lom

bia

Slo

ven

ia

Bu

lga

ria

Ca

na

da

Tu

rke

y

Au

stra

lia

Vie

t Na

m

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Ka

zakh

sta

n

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Un

ited

Sta

tes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Post publicly

%

Use of achievement data for accountability

Percentage of students in schools that use achievement data in the following ways:

Fig IV.4.13

34

Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals

Written specification of student-performance standards

Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers

Internal evaluation/self-evaluation

External evaluation

Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources)

Teacher mentoring

Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school

Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:

Singapore OECD average

%

Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14

SIN

The issue is not how many charter schools a country has…

…but how countries enable every school to assume charter type autonomy

35

Ch

ine

se T

aip

ei

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Th

aila

nd

Vie

t Na

mL

uxe

mb

ou

rgS

witz

erl

an

dIn

do

ne

sia

Italy

Ka

zakh

sta

nJa

pa

nC

zech

Re

pu

blic

Ne

the

rla

nd

sE

sto

nia

Alb

an

iaIr

ela

nd

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Hu

ng

ary

Sw

ed

en

Ko

rea

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Fin

lan

dD

en

ma

rkO

EC

D a

vera

ge

Fra

nce

Sh

an

gh

ai-

Ch

ina

Au

stra

liaS

pa

inS

lova

k R

ep

ub

licM

exi

coG

erm

an

yA

ust

ria

Co

lom

bia

Ch

ileC

an

ad

aP

ola

nd

Jord

an

Arg

en

tina

Un

ited

Ara

b E

mir

ate

sP

ort

ug

al

Pe

ruC

ost

a R

ica

Bra

zil

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

dM

ala

ysia

Slo

ven

iaU

rug

ua

yQ

ata

r

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

Sc

ore

-po

int

dif

fere

nc

e

Performance advantage of public schools

Performance advantage of private schools

Differences in mathematics performance between private and public schools shrink considerably after accounting for socio-economic status

Observed performance difference

After accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic status

Fig IV.1.19

3737Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Investing resources where they can make mostof 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

Money makes a difference……but only up to a point

38

Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and mathematics performance in PISA 2012

0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

511.338208

385.595556

368.102547

426.737491

420.512968

409.291568

447.984415

376.488601

387.824630

413.281467409.626613

391.459889

438.738260

422.632355

471.131461478.823277

490.571021

477.044455

612.675536

481.644744

498.957882520.545522

466.481430

517.501097

553.766659

487.063181

499.749903

518.070400513.525056

484.319298

494.984674

485.321181

573.468314

518.750335

536.406918

501.127422501.497460492.795697

522.971758

478.260636

514.745239

UK

504.150766500.026757

481.366786

505.540743

489.373070

530.931004

489.845098R² = 0.369063315519053R² = 0.00587924272458274

Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)

Ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

(s

co

re p

oin

ts)

Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000

Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more

Fig IV.1.8

-0.500.511.5300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700R² = 0

Equity in resource allocation (index points)

Ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

(s

co

re p

oin

ts)

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

SHA

4141Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies

across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies

over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation

(without excessive control)

CAN

4242Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







4343Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers Some students learn at high levels

All students need to learn at high levels

Student inclusion

Routine cognitive skills, rote learning

Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways

of workingCurriculum, instruction and assessment

Few years more than secondary

High-level professional knowledge workers

Teacher quality

‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical

Flat, collegial

Work organisation

Primarily to authorities

Primarily to peers and stakeholders

Accountability

What it all means

The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system

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]: SchleicherEDU

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