strong performers and successful reformers in pisa 2012 lessons for sweden

OECD EMPLOYER BRAND

Playbook

1

Strong performers and suc-cessful reformers in PISA 2012Lessons for Sweden

Andreas SchleicherStockholm, 18 February 2014

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

Of the 65 countries in PISA 40 improved at least in one of the three subjects – Sweden saw a decline

3

02468101214161820222426

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US

Singapore

Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei

Macao-China

Liechtenstein

Viet Nam

Latvia

Russian Fed.Lithuania

Croatia

SerbiaRomania

Bulgaria United Arab Emirates

KazakhstanThailand

Malaysia

2012Shanghai-China

Socially equitable distribution of learning

opportunities

Strong socio-economic impact on student

performance

High student performance

Low student performance

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US

AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS

2012

Socially equitable distribution of learning

opportunities

Strong socio-economic impact on student

performance

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Port

ug

al

Sp

ain

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Belg

ium

Kore

a

Lu

xem

bou

rg

Germ

an

y

Gre

ece

Jap

an

Au

stra

lia

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

New

Zeala

nd

Fra

nce

Neth

erl

an

ds

Den

mark

Italy

Au

stri

a

Cze

ch

Rep

ub

lic

Hu

ng

ary

Norw

ay

Icela

nd

Irela

nd

Mexic

o

Fin

lan

d

Sw

ed

en

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Pola

nd

Slo

vak R

ep

ub

lic

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class size

Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs, per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)

Percentage points

Difference with OECD average

Ratio of teachers' salary to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education aged 25-64 (2011 or latest available year)

Sp

ain

Ko

rea

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Po

rtu

ga

l

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Ca

na

da

Ge

rma

ny

Fin

lan

d

Isra

el

En

gla

nd

Au

stra

lia

De

nm

ark

Be

lgiu

m (

Fl.)

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

EU

21

ave

rag

e

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Be

lgiu

m (

Fr.

)

Ire

lan

d

Sw

ed

en

Slo

ven

ia

Fra

nce

Sco

tlan

d

Po

lan

d

Ch

ile

No

rwa

y

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Est

on

ia

Au

stri

a

Italy

Hu

ng

ary

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Ice

lan

d

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ratio

EU/US

AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


AustraliaAustria

Belgium Canada

Chile

Czech Rep.

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

IcelandIreland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

UK

US


Singapore

Shanghai

Singapore

2003 - 2012 Germany, Turkey and Mexico improved both their mathematics performance and equity levels

Math teaching ≠ math teachingPISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ

and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures

14

15

Viet N

am

Shang

hai-C

hina

Urugu

ay

Hong

Kong-

China

Portu

gal

Serbi

a

Singa

pore

Japa

n

Costa

Rica

Tunisi

a

Czech

Rep

ublic

Korea

Qatar

Unite

d Sta

tes

Irela

nd

Mex

ico

Norway

Kazak

hsta

n

Roman

ia

Alban

ia

Indo

nesia

Belgi

um

Thaila

nd

Russia

n Fed

erat

ion

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urgChi

le

Finla

nd

Slove

nia

Switzer

land

Liec

hten

stein

Icela

nd0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Ind

ex

of

ex

po

su

re t

o w

ord

pro

ble

ms

Students' exposure to word problems Fig I.3.1a

Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to

students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed

16

Sweden

Tunisi

a

Switzer

land

Luxe

mbo

urg

Nethe

rland

s

Costa

Rica

Liec

hten

stein

Indo

nesia

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Lith

uani

a

Austra

lia

OECD ave

rage

Thaila

nd

Finla

nd

Colom

bia

PeruIsr

ael

Belgi

um

Polan

d

Spain

Greec

e

Slove

nia

Hunga

ry

Kazak

hsta

n

Canad

a

Estoni

a

Latvi

a

Japa

n

Croat

ia

Russia

n Fed

erat

ion

Jord

an

Singa

pore

Icela

nd0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

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

17

Czech

Rep

ublic

Shang

hai-C

hina

Urugu

ay

Costa

Rica

Japa

nIta

ly

Norway

Hong

Kong-

China

Serbi

a

Croat

ia

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mon

tene

gro

Slove

nia

OECD ave

rage

Hunga

ry

New Z

eala

nd

Turke

y

Russia

n Fed

erat

ion

Icela

nd

Spain

Liec

hten

stein

Austra

lia

Brazil

PeruChi

le

Roman

ia

Nethe

rland

s

Colom

bia

Kazak

hsta

n

Mex

ico

Thaila

nd0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Ind

ex

of

ex

po

su

re t

o a

pp

lied

ma

the

ma

tic

sStudents' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.1c

18

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0430

450

470

490

510

Index of exposure to applied mathematics

Me

an

sc

ore

in m

ath

em

ati

cs

rarely sometimes frequentlynever

Relationship between mathematics performance and students' exposure to applied mathematics

Fig I.3.2

The dream of social mobility

In some countries it is close to a reality

19

20

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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

%

Percentage of resilient students

More than 40% resilient Between 20%-40% of resilient students Less than 20%

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.

The share of immigrant students in OECD countries increased from 9% in 2003 to 12% in 2012…

…while the performance disadvantage of immigrant students shrank by 11 score points during the same period (after accounting for socio-

economic factors)

21

23

Hu

ng

ary

-

Au

stra

lia -

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

-

Tu

rke

y

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d -

Ire

lan

d

Ca

na

da

La

tvia

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Th

aila

nd

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tion

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

OE

CD

ave

rag

e 2

00

3 -

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Po

rtu

ga

l

No

rwa

y

Italy

+

Lie

chte

nst

ein

Gre

ece

Ice

lan

d

Sp

ain

Ge

rma

ny

-

Bra

zil

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Sw

ed

en

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m -

Sw

itze

rla

nd

-

De

nm

ark

Fra

nce

Me

xico

Fin

lan

d

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

2012 2003

Sc

ore

po

int

dif

fere

nc

e (

wit

ho

ut-

wit

h im

mig

.)

Students without an immigrant background perform better

Students with an immigrant background perform better

Change between 2003 and 2012 in immigrant students' mathematics

performance – before accounting for students’ socio-economic statusFig II.3.5

It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods…

…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods

25

26

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

Between-school differences are still small in Sweden, but they increased from 831 index points in 2003 to 1042 index points in 201258% of between-school differences are explained by social factors

28H

on

g K

on

g-C

hin

a

Ko

rea

+L

iech

ten

ste

in

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

+Ja

pa

n

Sw

itze

rla

nd

B

elg

ium

-N

eth

erl

an

ds

-G

erm

an

y

Po

lan

d +

Ca

na

da

-F

inla

nd

-N

ew

Ze

ala

nd

-A

ust

ralia

-A

ust

ria

O

EC

D a

vera

ge

20

03

-F

ran

ce

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic -

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Ic

ela

nd

-S

lova

k R

ep

ub

lic

Ire

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l +

De

nm

ark

-Ita

ly +

No

rwa

y -

Hu

ng

ary

U

nite

d S

tate

s

Sw

ed

en

-S

pa

in

La

tvia

R

uss

ian

Fe

de

ratio

n

Tu

rke

y

Gre

ece

T

ha

ilan

d

Uru

gu

ay

-T

un

isia

B

razi

l M

exi

co

Ind

on

esi

a 0

10

20

30

40

2012 2003%

Percentage of top performers in mathematics in 2003 and 2012

Fig I.2.23

Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skills

30

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

*-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

medium-low level of prob-lem-solving

Low level of problem-solving

Medium-high level of prob-lem-solving

%• Evolution of employment in

occupational groups defined by problem-solving skills

Excellence matters

3131Le

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

3232Le

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

3333Le

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

34

-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

Sweden

35 Motivation to learn mathematics

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

I enjoy reading about mathematics

I look forward to my mathematics lessons

I do mathematics because I enjoy it

I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Sweden Shanghai-China OECD average

%

Fig III.3.9

UKB

36Perceived 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

Sweden 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.

37

4141Le

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 …

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Th

aila

nd

Vie

t Na

m

Sin

ga

po

re

Lie

chte

nst

ein

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Au

stri

a

Ko

rea

Italy

Alb

an

ia

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Isra

el

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Co

sta

Ric

a

Tu

nis

ia

Ch

ine

se T

aip

ei

Au

stra

lia

Tu

rke

y

Ca

na

da

Est

on

ia

Jord

an

Ro

ma

nia

Pe

ru

La

tvia

Uru

gu

ay

Ire

lan

d

Ice

lan

d

Lith

ua

nia

Arg

en

tina

Sw

ed

en

No

rwa

y

Fin

lan

d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Students in schools whose principals reported that "students' records of academic per-formance" or "recommendations of feeder schools" is always considered for admission

%

Most schools look at students’ past academic performance when considering admission

Fig IV.1.6

B

4343Le

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 …

Ko

rea

Isra

el

La

tvia

Slo

ven

ia

Po

lan

d

Arg

en

tina

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Co

lom

bia

Fra

nce

Tu

nis

ia

Qa

tar

Th

aila

nd

Gre

ece

Ro

ma

nia

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

.

Au

stri

a

Cro

atia

U.A

.E.

Ge

rma

ny

Hu

ng

ary

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Be

lgiu

m

Jord

an

Vie

t Na

m

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Tu

rke

y

Ind

on

esi

a

Sh

an

gh

ai-

Ch

ina

Sw

ed

en

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Ch

ine

se T

aip

ei-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

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

Me

an

ind

ex

dif

fere

nc

eTeacher shortage is more of concern in disadvantaged schools

Disadvantaged and public schools reported more teacher shortage

Advantaged and private schoolsreported more teacher shortage

Fig IV.3.5

B

4545Le

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

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

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration



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

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements



464

466

468

470

472

474

476

478

School data not public

School data public

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly

Fig IV.1.16

Fin

lan

d

Uru

gu

ay

Gre

ece

+

Sw

itze

rla

nd

+

Ire

lan

d +

Be

lgiu

m +

Sw

ed

en

+

Jap

an

+

Ge

rma

ny

+

No

rwa

y +

Italy

+

Hu

ng

ary

+

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Tu

nis

ia

De

nm

ark

+

OE

CD

ave

rag

e 2

00

3 +

Sp

ain

Au

stra

lia +

Lu

xem

bo

urg

+

Lie

chte

nst

ein

+

Ne

the

rla

nd

s +

La

tvia

-

Ko

rea

+

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d +

Ice

lan

d +

Bra

zil

+

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

+

Au

stri

a +

Ind

on

esi

a

Tu

rke

y +

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic +

Me

xico

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

+

Th

aila

nd

+

Po

rtu

ga

l +

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tion

+

Po

lan

d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2012 2003

%

Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student assessment data to monitor teachers

Percentage of students in schools that use assessment data to monitor teachers:

Fig IV.4.19

51

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:

Sweden Singapore OECD average

%

Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14

5252Le

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

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

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

375

386368

388376

427

410

409

439

445

421

388

491

423

479

613

471

376

453466

477478

481482

484485 487489 490

493494

495499500500501

501504506 514515

518 518519521 523536538

554561

573

R² = 0.0502966708290409

R² = 0.09219426518075

Teachers' salaries relative to per capita GDP (%)

Ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

(s

co

re p

oin

ts)

Among high-income countries high-performers pay teachers more

Per capita GDP less than USD 20 000

Per capita GDP over USD 20 000

Fig IV.1.10

Among low-income countries a host of other resources are the

principal barriers

In 33 countries schools where a higher share of principals reported that

teacher shortages hinder learning tend to show lower performance

-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

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

OECD countries tend to allocate at least an equal, if not a larger, number of teachers per student to disadvantaged schools; but disadvantaged schools tend to have great difficulty in attracting qualified teachers.

5757Le

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

5858Le

sson

s fr

om h

igh

perf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







5959Le

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

Average education systems High performers

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

strong performers and successful reformers in pisa 2012 lessons for sweden

Education

subjects sweden

strong performers

formal math

oecd employer lessons

word problems fig

percentage points1050

percentage of gdp

successful reformers