EDPC MIN Equity in Education Systems
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
0 gostou•1,445 visualizações
This document contains data and statistics from PISA and other international education assessments related to equity in education outcomes and opportunities across OECD countries. It includes data on performance differences between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged students, access to resources like technology and qualified teachers in advantaged vs. disadvantaged schools, gender gaps in education and employment outcomes, private vs. public spending on education levels, and other metrics related to equity.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (12)
Semelhante a EDPC MIN Equity in Education Systems
Semelhante a EDPC MIN Equity in Education Systems (20)
Mais de EduSkills OECD
Mais de EduSkills OECD (20)
Último
Último (20)
EDPC MIN Equity in Education Systems
- 1. EDPC MIN Equity Andreas Schleicher Directorate for Education and Skills
- 2. 350 400 450 500 550 600 Philippines Dominican Republic Lebanon Kosovo Morocco Indonesia Panama Georgia Thailand Kazakhstan North Macedonia Baku (Azerbaijan) Peru Argentina Brunei Darussalam Saudi Arabia Qatar Brazil Colombia Malaysia Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Costa Rica Montenegro Jordan Mexico Moldova Uruguay United Arab Emirates Romania Serbia Malta Chile Greece Luxembourg Slovak Republic Turkey Israel Ukraine Belarus Iceland Hungary Croatia Lithuania Switzerland Russia Latvia Netherlands Italy France OECD average Austria Slovenia Belgium Portugal Czech Republic United States New Zealand Australia Chinese Taipei Germany Denmark United Kingdom Norway Japan Sweden Korea Poland Estonia Finland Ireland Canada Hong Kong (China) Macao (China) Singapore B-S-J-Z (China) Bottom quarter Top quarter Mean score PISA performance, by top quarter and bottom quarter of socio-economic status
- 3. -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 Peru Australia Türkiye Luxembourg Brazil Colombia Argentina B-S-J-Z (China) Israel United States New Zealand Slovenia Indonesia Canada United Kingdom Belgium Switzerland Ireland Spain Denmark Germany Sweden Korea OECD average Slovak Republic Greece Mexico Norway Viet Nam Chile Malaysia Qatar Estonia Serbia Czech Republic Chinese Taipei osnia and Herzegovina Iceland France Albania Netherlands Belarus Singapore Montenegro Georgia Italy Costa Rica Portugal Ukraine Poland Kosovo Croatia Latvia Finland Lithuania Mean index difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Index of shortage of education staff Index of shortage of educational material Few systems align resources with needs Fig II.5.5 Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools
- 4. Can the closest school be always the best school? Variation in reading performance between and within schools 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 Finland Iceland Baku (Azerbaijan) Norway Ireland Denmark Canada Portugal New Zealand Estonia Poland Sweden United Kingdom Kosovo Latvia Albania Mexico Georgia United States Bosnia and Herzegovina Saudi Arabia Malaysia Australia Kazakhstan Costa Rica Belarus Philippines Jordan Montenegro Morocco Chile Indonesia Macao (China) Moldova Thailand Dominican Republic Ukraine Greece Colombia France Korea Chinese Taipei Lithuania Panama Croatia B-S-J-Z (China) Uruguay Malta Brazil Hong Kong (China) Peru Brunei Darussalam North Macedonia Singapore Luxembourg Japan Switzerland Argentina Slovenia Romania Serbia Belgium Italy Qatar Türkiye Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Germany Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Netherlands Lebanon Israel Between-school variation Within-school variation Percentage of the total variation in performance across OECD countries Performance variation between schools Performance variation within schools
- 5. Early childhood education is common above the age of 3, but at lower ages its importance varies across countries Enrolment rates of young children by type of programme and by age group (2020) Figure B2.1. 0 20 40 60 80 100 France Israel Belgium Spain Denmark Norway Iceland Sweden Japan Korea Germany Latvia Hungary Portugal Slovenia Italy Netherlands Estonia Austria Lithuania Poland EU22 average Finland Luxembourg Czech Republic OECD average Slovak Republic Argentina Chile Colombia Brazil United Kingdom Mexico United States India Ireland New Zealand Australia Greece Switzerland Türkiye Saudi Arabia South Africa Under 3 years - ISCED 0 Under 3 years - outside ISCED 0 3 to 5 - ISCED 0
- 6. Spending on ECEC varies strongly across countries Expenditure on all children aged 3 to 5 enrolled in ECE and primary education (based on head counts) Tables B2.1 and B2.3. 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Iceland Norway Chile Israel Sweden Estonia France Latvia Slovenia Hungary Poland Lithuania Mexico Finland Denmark OECD average Germany EU22 average Italy Luxembourg Portugal Spain Slovak Republic Austria Korea Czech Republic Türkiye Netherlands Ireland New Zealand Percentage of GDP spent on all children aged 3 to 5 enrolled in ECE and primary education Percentage of 3 to 5 year old children enrolled in ECE and primary education
- 7. In some countries, the share of private expenditure on ECEC is higher than the share of private expenditure on tertiary education Relative proportions of private expenditure on early childhood and tertiary education (after public to private transfers) Tables B2.3. and C3.2. [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] OECD Average [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Relative proportion of private expenditure on ECEC Relative proportion of private expenditure on tertiary education Share of private expenditure on ECEC is higher than on tertiary education Share of private expenditure on tertiary education is higher than on ECEC
- 8. Recovery measures to alleviate the effects of the pandemic covered many dimensions Number of countries implementing recovery policies for students due to COVID-19 (2021/22 or 2022) Figure 5. 0 5 10 15 20 Groupingstudentsaccordingtoproficiencyratherthanage Strengthenedschoolnutritionservices Cashtransferstoincreaseenrolmentamongstudentsfromdisadvantagedfamilies Individualisedself-learningprogrammes Automaticre-enrollmentofstudentsinschool Communitymobilisationcampaignstobringstudentsbacktoschool Adjustmentstothecurriculum Tutoringprogrammesorfinancialsupportfortutoring Earlywarningsystemstoidentifystudentsatriskofdroppingout Referralsystemsforstudentsinneedofspecialisedservices Programmesforthosedroppedoutofschool Increasedinstructiontime Strengthenedwater,sanitationandhygieneservices Psychosocialandmentalhealthsupporttostudents
- 9. Increased use of digital tools is an important legacy of the pandemic Share of countries planning to maintain or develop digitalisation measures implemented due to COVID-19 Figure 4. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Enhanced provision of hybrid learning Enhanced provision of pre-service digital training to teachers Enhanced use of digitalised assessments/exams Enhanced provision of distance learning Enhanced provision of digital tools at the school Enhanced provision of in-service digital training to teachers Enhanced provision of digital training for students Yes Decisions made at local level of governance No
- 10. Ensuring that education contributes to equitable economic and social outcomes
- 11. On average across OECD countries, adults with an upper secondary qualification earned about 21% more than those with below upper secondary education. The earnings advantage increased to 90% for those with a tertiary degree 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 Finland Ireland Estonia Latvia Lithuania France Belgium New Zealand Denmark Australia Sweden Poland Netherlands Norway Canada Luxembourg Italy OECD average Slovenia Hungary Greece Portugal Spain Mexico Slovak Republic Switzerland Austria Korea Germany Türkiye Israel United States United Kingdom Costa Rica Colombia Chile Czech Republic Iceland Japan Index 12 - Relative earnings of 25-64 year-olds with income from employment (full-time full-year workers), 2020 Below upper secondary=100 Upper secondary educational attainment Tertiary educational attainment Source : EAG 2022. Table A4.1.
- 12. Gender employment gaps exist across all levels of education, but tended to be widest among men and women with low levels of education 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Türkiye Mexico Colombia Greece Latvia Costa Rica Czech Republic Italy Poland Ireland Canada Slovenia OECD average United States Sweden Germany Hungary Estonia Chile Australia France Switzerland Lithuania Denmark New Zealand Belgium Norway United Kingdom Korea Finland Austria Israel Spain Slovak Republic Netherlands Portugal Iceland Luxembourg Japan 11- Gender gaps (Men - Women) in employment rates of 25-34 year-olds, by educational attainment (2021) Below upper secondary Tertiary educational attainment Percentage points Source : EAG 2022. Table A3.2.
- 13. Raising educational outcomes through more equitable education opportunities
- 14. Women are still under-represented in upper secondary vocational education and among new entrants in STEM at tertiary level 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Hungary Iceland Lithuania Estonia Greece Poland Germany Italy Norway Sweden Korea Japan Slovenia Czech Republic Switzerland Latvia Slovak Republic OECD average Portugal France Denmark Austria Türkiye Chile Belgium Luxembourg Canada Spain Israel Australia Mexico Netherlands Costa Rica United Kingdom Finland Colombia New Zealand Ireland United States % 18 - Share of women graduated from upper secondary vocational education and enrolled in STEM at tertiary level of education (2020) Share of women graduates from upper secondary vocational programmes Share of women among new entrants in STEM at tertiary level Source : EAG 2022. Tables B3.2 and B4.2.
- 15. Investing in the early years
- 16. One-third of countries spent at least twice as much on higher education as on primary education 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 France Czech Republic Germany Netherlands Korea Canada New Zealand Türkiye Spain Austria Belgium Latvia Japan Portugal Australia United States OECD average Ireland Mexico United Kingdom Norway Luxembourg Lithuania Colombia Sweden Hungary Slovak Republic Israel Italy Iceland Chile Poland Slovenia Finland Greece Denmark Estonia Costa Rica Switzerland 23 - Ratios of per student expenditure in primary, secondary and tertiary education (2019) Primary education =1 Ratio of per student expenditure : Upper secondary education/ Primary education Ratio of per student expenditure : Tertiary education/ Primary education Ratio Source : EAG 2022. Table C1.1.
- 17. Aligning resources with learners' needs
- 18. Socio-economically disadvantaged schools were more likely than advantaged schools to suffer shortages of education staff, on average across countries -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Japan Costa Rica Belgium Sweden Portugal Germany Colombia Estonia Italy Spain Israel Luxembourg Türkiye Korea Ireland New Zealand Czech Republic Hungary Greece Canada United States OECD average Australia Netherlands Mexico France Slovenia Finland United Kingdom Latvia Austria Chile Norway Iceland Switzerland Slovak Republic Denmark Lithuania Poland 27 - Index of shortage of education staff, by schools’ socio-economic profile (2018) Based on principals’ reports Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools Index Higher values in the index indicate that principals reported more shortages of teaching and supporting staff in school Source : PISA 2018. Table V.B1.4.1.
- 19. On average across OECD countries, about one in five students from the quarter of the most socio-economically disadvantaged schools did not have access to the Internet and a computer that they could use for schoolwork at home 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mexico Colombia Türkiye Costa Rica Japan Chile United States Greece Hungary Slovak Republic OECD average Ireland Italy Israel France Germany New Zealand Korea Spain Belgium Australia Estonia Luxembourg Austria Netherlands Portugal Canada United Kingdom Czech Republic Latvia Lithuania Sweden Finland Switzerland Slovenia Norway Iceland Poland Denmark 30 - Percentage of students who reported having access to the Internet and a computer that they can use for schoolwork at home, by school socio-economic profile (2018) Based on students’ reports Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools % Source : PISA 2018. Table B.2.3.
- 20. Enabling an inclusive school environment
- 21. Students in socio-economically disadvantaged were more likely to report a weaker sense of belonging at school than advantaged students in all OECD countries -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Slovak Republic Czech Republic Latvia United States Canada Australia New Zealand Colombia Poland United Kingdom Lithuania Slovenia Estonia Chile Mexico Ireland Türkiye France Finland Luxembourg OECD average Hungary Sweden Greece Iceland Costa Rica Italy Portugal Japan Belgium Korea Denmark Netherlands Norway Germany Switzerland Austria Spain Israel 32 - Index of sense of belonging at school, by students’ socio-economic status (2018) Based on students’ reports Disadvantaged students Advantaged students Index Negative values in this index mean that the student reported a lower sense of belonging at school than the average student in OECD countries. Source : PISA 2018. Table B1.9.4.
- 22. Parents discussing their child’s progress was more common in socio-economically advantaged schools when the initiative was taken by parents, whereas it was more common in disadvantaged schools when the initiative was taken by teachers, on average across countries 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Japan Hungary Luxembourg Belgium Korea Germany Norway Mexico Ireland Slovak Republic Switzerland France Czech Republic Australia Netherlands Iceland Denmark Costa Rica United Kingdom United States New Zealand OECD average Sweden Israel Estonia Finland Chile Canada Colombia Poland Italy Slovenia Spain Türkiye Lithuania Latvia Portugal Greece Austria % 33 - Percentage of students’ parents who discussed their child’s progress with a teacher on their own initiative, by students’ socio-economic status (2018) Based on principals’ reports Disadvantaged schools Advantaged students Source : PISA 2018. Table B1.10.3.
- 23. Teachers working in schools with a high concentration of socio-economically disadvantaged students were more likely to report a desire to change schools than those working in schools with lower concentrations of these students 0 10 20 30 40 50 Austria Denmark Czech Republic Norway Latvia Belgium Estonia Slovak Republic Hungary Iceland Lithuania Israel United States Netherlands Sweden Slovenia Italy OECD average Spain France Colombia Finland New Zealand Australia Chile Portugal Mexico Japan Korea Türkiye Canada Costa Rica Germany Greece Ireland Luxembourg Poland Switzerland United Kingdom 35 - Percentage of teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" with the statement "I would like to change to another school if that were possible", by school characteristics (2018) Based on principals' and teachers’ reports Schools with less than 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes Schools with more than 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes % Source : TALIS 2018. Table II.2.20.
- 24. Money is necessary but not sufficient [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] R² = 0.50 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 510 530 550 7 500 57 500 107 500 157 500 207 500 Average performance in reading (in score points) Cumulative expenditure per student over the theoretical duration of studies (in US dollars) OECD average: 487 Points OECD average: 89 092 USD Fig I.4.4
- 25. Learning time ≠ learning outcomes 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Sweden Estonia New Zealand Japan Czech Republic Macao (China) Netherlands Ireland France United Kingdom Australia Norway Iceland Canada Belgium Slovenia Hong Kong (China) Latvia OECD average Lithuania Uruguay Luxembourg Portugal Slovak Republic Denmark Poland Hungary Singapore Austria United States Chinese Taipei Israel Croatia Korea Russia Bulgaria Greece Italy Türkiye Chile Brazil Colombia Mexico Costa Rica Montenegro Peru Qatar United Arab Emirates Thailand Dominican Republic Hours Time in school Learning out of school Productivity Note: Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire, Productivity is measured by score points in reading per hour of total learning time Score points in reading per hour of learning time
- 26. The digital world has become the real world Number of hours per week 15-year-olds spent using the Internet (PISA 2018) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Denmark Sweden Chile New Zealand Uruguay United States Costa Rica Bulgaria Australia Serbia Latvia Thailand Iceland Luxembourg Estonia United Kingdom Hungary Poland Lithuania Brazil Finland Croatia Russia Belgium Singapore Italy Slovak Republic OECD average Spain Austria Malta France Israel Ireland Greece Brunei Darussalam Czech Republic Switzerland Macao (China) Chinese Taipei Slovenia Hong Kong (China) Georgia Dominican Republic Mexico Turkey Kazakhstan Panama Albania Japan Korea Morocco Hours Outside of school At school Türkiye
- 27. Digital navigation skills (PISA 2018) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Singapore 38 Korea 39 B-S-J-Z (China) 39 Hong Kong (China) 34 Chinese Taipei 46 Macao (China) 39 United Kingdom 22 Japan 34 United States 30 Canada 26 New Zealand 30 Netherlands 22 Australia 26 Finland 20 Ireland 20 Israel 17 UAE 25 Slovenia 20 Poland 29 Brunei Darussalam 26 Malta 18 Croatia 19 Estonia 24 Austria 22 Malaysia 27 Belarus 27 OECD average 24 Germany 22 Belgium 27 Lithuania 22 Czech Republic 27 Overall average 22 France 28 Latvia 18 Türkiye 36 Thailand 24 Qatar 23 Hungary 25 Portugal 26 Italy 25 Switzerland 23 Albania 11 Denmark 16 Luxembourg 28 Norway 16 Bulgaria 14 Indonesia 14 Spain¹ 23 Chile 25 Sweden 18 Slovak Republic 19 Philippines 19 Costa Rica 21 Greece 18 Iceland 31 Serbia 18 Mexico 15 Brazil 15 Kazakhstan 20 Montenegro 14 Georgia 15 BiH 12 Panama 17 Uruguay 8 Peru 18 Colombia 22 Dominican Republic 9 Baku (Azerbaijan) 15 Kosovo 7 Morocco 6 Strictly focused navigation Actively explorative navigation No navigation Limited navigation % Percentage of students who self activated the multiple-source by clicking hyperlink Highly effective navigation Actively explorative navigation Limited navigation No navigation Figure 3.7
- 28. Beyond reading, math and science Growth mindset
- 29. [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] R² = 0.47 330 380 430 480 530 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 Average reading score Percentage of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that their intelligence cannot change very much (%) OECD average OECD average Growth mindset and reading performance Fig II.14.3 More students holding a growth mindset Higher performance Similar relationship within most countries (Figure III.14.2)
- 30. Growth mindset and student attitudes Change in the following indices when students disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much“: -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Motivation to master tasks Self-efficacy Fear of failure Learning goals Value of school Change in the index Fig III.14.5 All linear regression models account for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
- 31. Growth mindset matters more for some groups Students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much", by the following groups of students Fig III.14.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Boys Girls Disadvantaged Advantaged Without an immigrant background With an immigrant background Score-point difference Gender Socio-economic status Immigrant background
- 32. Index of sense of belonging Fig III.9.2 -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Spain Austria Albania Norway Switzerland Germany Korea Denmark Netherlands Portugal Iceland Luxembourg Hungary Belgium Croatia Costa Rica Italy Sweden Saudi Arabia Serbia Greece Japan Finland Kosovo OECD average Mexico Romania Bosnia and Herzegovina Uruguay Chinese Taipei Moldova France Belarus United Arab Emirates Chile Montenegro Georgia Slovenia Argentina Peru Lithuania Estonia Türkiye Indonesia Ireland Singapore Jordan Canada Colombia Malaysia Brazil B-S-J-Z (China) Australia United Kingdom Qatar Panama Baku (Azerbaijan) New Zealand Kazakhstan Malta United States Ukraine Poland Latvia Philippines Dominican Republic Czech Republic Slovak Republic Bulgaria Morocco Viet Nam Hong Kong (China) Thailand Macao (China) Brunei Darussalam Mean index
- 33. What school life means for students’ life
- 35. Teacher enthusiasm and reading performance Fig III.5.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 It was clear to me that the teacher liked teaching us The enthusiasm of the teacher inspired me It was clear that the teacher likes to deal with the topic of the lesson The teacher showed enjoyment in teaching Score-point difference in reading compared to students who reported “strongly disagree” Disagree Agree Strongly agree
- 36. Teacher behaviour hindering learning and reading performance Fig III.7.4 R² = 0.09 R² = 0.10 R² = 0.12 R² = 0.18 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Average reading score Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the above behaviours hinder student learning "a lot" Teachers not meeting indiviudal students‘ needs Teacher absenteeism Staff resisting change Teachers not being well prepared for classes Teachers being too strict with students The R2 is indicated in bold when the association is significant Based on country-level analysis
- 37. Students' life satisfaction and school climate Change in the school-level index associated with a one-point change on the student life-satisfaction scale Fig III.11.7 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 Index of disciplinary climate Index of exposure to bullying Index of sense of belonging at school Index of teacher support Index of teacher feedback Index of student co-operation Index of student competition Change in students’ average life satisfaction associated with a one-unit increase in the school-level indices After accounting for student and school characteristics Before accounting for student and school characteristics Greater Life Satisfaction
- 38. Student co-operation and competition Fig III.8.1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Netherlands Denmark Japan Germany Georgia Austria Croatia Czech Republic Switzerland Kazakhstan Ukraine Belgium Indonesia Iceland Viet Nam Kosovo Belarus Norway Estonia North Macedonia Israel Slovenia Lithuania Malaysia Luxembourg Hungary Greece Moldova Albania B-S-J-Z (China) OECD average Finland Uruguay Romania Thailand Mexico Chinese Taipei Philippines Spain United Arab Emirates Italy Serbia Macao (China) Slovak Republic Panama Latvia Chile Sweden Argentina Montenegro Poland Lebanon France Baku (Azerbaijan) Bosnia and Herzegovina Costa Rica Peru Dominican Republic Qatar Colombia Portugal Australia Bulgaria Hong Kong (China) Türkiye Brunei Darussalam Jordan New Zealand Korea Saudi Arabia Ireland Singapore Morocco United Kingdom Brazil Malta United States Index of student co-operation Index of student competition Mean index Student competition is relatively higher than student co-operation Student co-operation is relatively higher than student competition
- 39. Student co-operation and competition, and reading performance Fig III.8.3 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Students seem to value co- operation It seems that students are co- operating with each other Students seem to share the feeling that co-operating with each other is important Students feel that they are encouraged to co-operate with others Students seem to value competition It seems that students are competing with each other Students seem to share the feeling that competing with each other is important Students feel that they are being compared with others Score-point difference in reading After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile OECD average Student co-operation Student competition Score-point difference when students reported that the below statements are "very true" or "extremely true"
- 40. Internet use outside of school and students' feelings, OECD average Fig III.12.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Happy Lively Proud Joyful Cheerful Scared Miserable Afraid Sad Low Internet users Moderate Internet users Average Internet users High Internet users Heavy Internet users Percentage of students Positive feelings Negative feelings Type of student according to the time they spend on the Internet outside of school:
- 41. Inclusion The right to be equal The right to be different Social background Gender Location Immigration
- 42. Gender gap in career expectations amongst top performers High performers in mathematics and/or science who aspire to science and engineering professionals Fig III.8.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Argentina Lebanon Greece Albania Chile Qatar Türkiye Sweden Brazil United Kingdom North Macedonia Australia Brunei Darussalam Montenegro Serbia France Denmark Ireland Hungary Croatia Belgium United Arab Emirates Israel Estonia Portugal Malaysia Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Thailand New Zealand OECD average-36 Kazakhstan Iceland Canada Lithuania Baku (Azerbaijan) Italy Germany Latvia Singapore Poland Norway Bulgaria Romania Switzerland Jordan Moldova Belarus Slovak Republic United States B-S-J-Z (China) Finland Austria Chinese Taipei Netherlands Czech Republic Macao (China) Korea Hong Kong (China) Ukraine Indonesia Japan Percentage of top performers who expect a career in the field Expect to work as science or engineering professionals Top performers among all students Girls Boys
- 43. Against the odds: Growth mindset and student resilience Fig II.3.5 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Colombia Mexico Morocco New Zealand Malta Baku (Azerbaijan) Uruguay Kazakhstan Brunei Darussalam Costa Rica Iceland Kosovo Lithuania Thailand Indonesia Brazil Argentina Chile Australia Ukraine United States Sweden Latvia Bosnia and Herzegovina Dominican Republic Denmark Romania Albania Ireland Moldova Israel Slovenia Georgia United Arab Emirates Malaysia Saudi Arabia Canada Qatar Belarus Finland United Kingdom OECD average Italy Greece Singapore Serbia Peru France Croatia Hungary Jordan Netherlands Türkiye Slovak Republic Montenegro Philippines Portugal Austria Poland Japan Bulgaria Luxembourg Belgium (Flemish) Switzerland Germany Chinese Taipei Lebanon Estonia Korea Macao (China) North Macedonia Czech Republic Panama Hong Kong (China) B-S-J-Z (China) Percentage-point difference Difference in the share of academically resilient students between those who exhibited a growth mindset and those who did not
- 44. Beyond the average Inclusion in school systems
- 45. Contribution of public and private schools to social segregation across schools Fig II.4.5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Brunei Darussalam Malta Canada Finland Croatia North Macedonia Sweden Chinese Taipei Korea Denmark New Zealand Qatar Japan Switzerland Macao (China) Netherlands Saudi Arabia Kazakhstan Serbia France Greece Spain Italy Luxembourg Poland Singapore United States Estonia United Kingdom OECD average Slovenia Jordan Portugal Germany Türkiye Viet Nam Dominican Republic Malaysia Hong Kong (China) Philippines Morocco Georgia Australia Latvia Lithuania Czech Republic Thailand Hungary Uruguay B-S-J-Z (China) United Arab Emirates Lebanon Costa Rica Panama Albania Argentina Mexico Indonesia Brazil Colombia Chile Slovak Republic Peru Social segregation across private schools (weighted by the size of the private schooling sector) Social segregation across public schools (weighted by the size of the public schooling sector) Social segregation observed between public and private schools No social diversity index
Notas do Editor
- There’s a temptation to think this is all about money But while money matters for countries that invest little, here on the left side, for OECD countries that relationship is rather tenuous. Estonia, the OECD’s top performer, spends far less than most OECD countries.
- And if you don’t feel quite ready for it, your students are. Even before the pandemic, they spent an average of 35 hours per week on the internet, and in Denmark and Sweden it was close to 50 hours, a large chunk of which in school, you see that marked in yellow So for your students, the digital world has become the real world.
- But being a digital native doesn’t mean you are digitally skilled. Here you see the share of 15-year-olds who are highly effective navigators on the internet or at least capable to actively explore information. As you see there is no country in the Western world with at least half of the student population good at navigating the digital world. Some students have limited navigation skills but often a majority did not even demonstrate basic navigation strategies. So technology seems way ahead of student capacities.