Strong performers and
successful reformers
in PISA 2012
OECD
LessonsEMPLOYER
for Sweden
BRAND
Playbook
Andreas Schleicher
Stockholm, 18 February 2014
1
3
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
High student performance
2012
Shanghai-China
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Chinese Taipei
Korea
Macao-China
Japan
Switzerland
Liechtenstein
Estonia
Netherlands
Poland
Canada
Belgium
Finland
Viet Nam
Germany
Strong socio-economic
Austria
Australia
impact on student New Zealand Denmark
Slovenia Ireland
Iceland
Czech
Rep.
performance
26
24
22France20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
UK
Latvia
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Italy
Russian Fed.
US
Spain
Lithuania
Sweden
Slovak Rep.
Hungary
Croatia
Israel
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Turkey
Serbia
United Arab Emirates
Kazakhstan
Thailand
Chile
Malaysia
Low student performance
Mexico
Socially equitable
distribution of learning
opportunities
4
2
0
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Strong socio-economic
Italy
impact on student
Japan
performance
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Slovak Rep.
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
2012
Korea
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Germany
Estonia
Canada
Finland
Socially equitable
Austria
Australia
New Zealand Denmark
Ireland
Slovenia
distribution of learning
Iceland
Czech Rep.
opportunities
France
UK
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Italy
US
Spain
Sweden
Hungary
Israel
Greece
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Slovak Rep.
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Korea
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Germany
Estonia
Canada
Finland
Austria
Australia
New Zealand Denmark
Ireland
Slovenia
Iceland
Czech Rep.
France
UK
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Italy
US
Spain
Sweden
Hungary
Israel
Greece
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher
compensation costs, per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Salary as % of GDP/capita
Instruction time
1/teaching time
1/class size
Difference with OECD average
15
Percentage points
10
5
0
-5
Slovak Republic
Poland
United States
Sweden
Finland
Mexico
Ireland
Iceland
Norway
Hungary
Czech Republic
Austria
Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
France
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Australia
Japan
Greece
Germany
Luxembourg
Korea
Belgium
Switzerland
Spain
Portugal
-10
EU/US
Slovak Republic
Iceland
Czech Republic
Hungary
Italy
Austria
Estonia
United States
Norway
Chile
Poland
Scotland
France
Slovenia
Sweden
Ireland
Belgium (Fr.)
Netherlands
EU21 average
OECD average
Belgium (Fl.)
Denmark
Australia
England
Israel
Finland
Germany
Canada
New Zealand
Portugal
Luxembourg
Korea
Spain
Ratio of teachers' salary to earnings for full-time, full-year
workers with tertiary education aged 25-64 (2011 or latest
available year)
Ratio
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Slovak Rep.
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Korea
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Germany
Estonia
Canada
Finland
Austria
Australia
New Zealand Denmark
Ireland
Slovenia
Iceland
Czech Rep.
France
UK
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Italy
US
Spain
Sweden
Hungary
Israel
Greece
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Slovak Rep.
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Shanghai
2003 - 2012
Singapore
Singapore
Korea
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Germany
Estonia
Canada
Finland
Austria
Australia
New Zealand Denmark
Ireland
Slovenia
Iceland
Czech Rep.
France
UK
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Italy
US
Spain
Sweden
Hungary
Israel
Greece
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
14
Math teaching ≠ math teaching
PISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ
and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures
1.50
1.00
Viet Nam
Macao-China
Shanghai-China
Turkey
Uruguay
Greece
Hong Kong-China
Chinese Taipei
Portugal
Brazil
Serbia
Bulgaria
Singapore
Netherlands
Japan
Argentina
Costa Rica
Lithuania
Tunisia
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Israel
Korea
Latvia
Qatar
Italy
United States
Estonia
Ireland
Australia
Mexico
United Arab Emirates
Norway
Malaysia
Kazakhstan
United Kingdom
Romania
OECD average
Albania
Colombia
Indonesia
Sweden
Belgium
Peru
Thailand
Denmark
Russian Federation
Canada
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Germany
Croatia
Luxembourg
Montenegro
Chile
Poland
Finland
Austria
Slovenia
France
Switzerland
Jordan
Liechtenstein
Spain
Iceland
Index of exposure to word problems
15
Students' exposure to word problems
Fig I.3.1a
2.50
2.00
Formal math situated in a word
problem, where it is obvious to
students what mathematical
knowledge and skills are needed
0.50
0.00
Sweden
Iceland
Tunisia
Argentina
Switzerland
Brazil
Luxembourg
Ireland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Costa Rica
Austria
Liechtenstein
Malaysia
Indonesia
Denmark
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Lithuania
Germany
Australia
Chile
OECD average
Slovak Republic
Thailand
Qatar
Finland
Portugal
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
Czech Republic
Israel
Italy
Belgium
Hong Kong-China
Poland
France
Spain
Montenegro
Greece
Turkey
Slovenia
Viet Nam
Hungary
Bulgaria
Kazakhstan
Chinese Taipei
Canada
United States
Estonia
Romania
Latvia
Serbia
Japan
Korea
Croatia
Albania
Russian Federation
United Arab Emirates
Jordan
Macao-China
Singapore
Shanghai-China
Iceland
Index of exposure to formal mathematics
16
Students' exposure to conceptual understanding
Fig I.3.1b
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Czech Republic
Macao-China
Shanghai-China
Viet Nam
Uruguay
Finland
Costa Rica
Sweden
Japan
Chinese Taipei
Italy
Israel
Norway
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Austria
Serbia
Korea
Croatia
Latvia
Slovak Republic
Greece
United Kingdom
Ireland
Luxembourg
Belgium
Montenegro
Argentina
Slovenia
Bulgaria
OECD average
Lithuania
Hungary
Switzerland
New Zealand
Germany
Turkey
Denmark
Russian Federation
Singapore
Iceland
United States
Spain
Qatar
Liechtenstein
Poland
Australia
France
Brazil
Malaysia
Peru
Canada
Chile
United Arab Emirates
Romania
Tunisia
Netherlands
Portugal
Colombia
Albania
Kazakhstan
Jordan
Mexico
Indonesia
Thailand
Index of exposure to applied mathematics
17
Students' exposure to applied mathematics
Fig I.3.1c
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Relationship between mathematics performance
and students' exposure to applied mathematics
18
Fig I.3.2
Mean score in mathematics
510
490
470
450
430
0.0
never
0.5
1.0
rarely
1.5
2.0
sometimes
Index of exposure to applied mathematics
2.5
3.0
frequently
19
The dream of social mobility
In some countries it is close to a reality
Shanghai-China
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Viet Nam
Singapore
Korea
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Estonia
Netherlands
Poland
Canada
Finland
Belgium
Portugal
Germany
Turkey
OECD average
Italy
Spain
Latvia
Ireland
Australia
Thailand
Austria
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Lithuania
France
Norway
Iceland
New Zealand
Russian Fed.
United States
Croatia
Denmark
Sweden
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Mexico
Serbia
Greece
Israel
Tunisia
Romania
Malaysia
Indonesia
Bulgaria
Kazakhstan
Uruguay
Brazil
Costa Rica
Chile
Colombia
Montenegro
U.A.E.
Argentina
Jordan
Peru
Qatar
20
Percentage of resilient students
% 40
30
More than 40
% resilient
Fig II.2.4
80
70
60
50
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.
20
10
Between 20%-40% of resilient students
Less than 20%
0
21
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)
Finland
Mexico
France
Change between 2003 and 2012 in immigrant students' mathematics
performance – before accounting for students’ socio-economic status
Denmark
Switzerland -
Belgium -
Austria
Sweden
Netherlands
Brazil
Germany -
Spain
Iceland
Greece
80
Liechtenstein
2012
Italy +
Norway
Portugal
Luxembourg
OECD average 2003 -
Czech Republic
Russian Federation
Thailand
United States
United Kingdom
Hong Kong-China
Latvia
Canada
Ireland
New Zealand -
Turkey
-20
Slovak Republic -
Macao-China
Australia -
Hungary -
Score point difference (without-with immig.)
23
Fig II.3.5
2003
100
Students without an immigrant
background perform better
60
40
20
0
Students with an immigrant
background perform better
-40
25
It is not just about poor kids
in poor neighbourhoods…
…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods
60
40
20
20
80
Albania
Finland
Iceland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Estonia
Ireland
Spain
Canada
Poland
Latvia
Kazakhstan
United States
Mexico
Colombia
Costa Rica
Russian Fed.
Malaysia
Jordan
New Zealand
Lithuania
Greece
Montenegro
United Kingdom
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Portugal
Indonesia
Chile
Thailand
Romania
Tunisia
Switzerland
Peru
Uruguay
Croatia
U.A.E.
Macao-China
Serbia
Viet Nam
Korea
Hong Kong-China
Singapore
Austria
Italy
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Japan
Bulgaria
Israel
Qatar
Shanghai-China
Germany
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Turkey
Belgium
Hungary
Liechtenstein
Netherlands
Chinese Taipei
Variation in student performance as % of OECD average variation
26
Variability in student mathematics performance
between and within schools
Fig II.2.7
100
80
Performance differences
Between-school differences are still small in
between schools
Sweden, but they increased
from 831 index
OECD average
points in 2003 to 1042 index points in 2012
58% of between-school differences are
explained by social factors
0
Performance variation of
students within schools
40
60
OECD average
100
%
30
Hong Kong-China
Korea +
Liechtenstein
Macao-China +
Japan
Switzerland
Belgium Netherlands Germany
Poland +
Canada Finland New Zealand Australia Austria
OECD average 2003 France
Czech Republic Luxembourg
Iceland Slovak Republic
Ireland
Portugal +
Denmark Italy +
Norway Hungary
United States
Sweden Spain
Latvia
Russian Federation
Turkey
Greece
Thailand
Uruguay Tunisia
Brazil
Mexico
Indonesia
28
Percentage of top performers in mathematics
in 2003 and 2012
2012
Fig I.2.23
2003
40
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
20
10
0
Excellence matters
30
%
• Evolution of employment in
occupational groups defined by
20
problem-solving skills
25
15
medium-low level
of problemsolving
10
5
0
Low level of
problem-solving
-5
-10
-15
Medium-high
level of problem-
-20
solving
High impact on outcomes
31
31
Quick wins
Lessons from high performers
Must haves
Catching up with the top-performers
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
32
32
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement
Capacity
at point of delivery
Resources
where they yield most
Gateways, instructional
systems
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
33
33
Lessons from high performers

Quick wins
Must haves
A commitment
to education and the belief that
Commitment
to universal
competencies
can be learned
andachievement
therefore all
children
can achieve
Capacity
Universal
educational standards andResources
personalization as
at point
of delivery
yieldbody…
most
the approach to heterogeneitywhere
in the they
student
… as opposed to a belief that students have different
Gateways, instructional
destinations to be met with different expectations, and
systems
selection/stratification as the approach to
Coherence
heterogeneity
A learning system

Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring
Low feasibility
High feasibility
student success and to whom

Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
34
Countries where students have stronger beliefs
in their abilities perform better in mathematics
Fig III.4.5
OECD average
650
Mean mathematics performance
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
-0.60
Shanghai-China
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Korea
R² =
Chinese Taipei
Macao-China
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands Estonia Canada
Liechtenstein
Finland
Germany
Poland
Belgium
Viet Nam
Slovenia
Denmark
New Zealand
Latvia
Sweden
Portugal
Italy
Austria
Australia
Russian Fed.
Hungary
Luxembourg
Croatia
Slovak RepublicSpain
Greece
Norway
Turkey Israel
Sweden
Serbia
Czech
Republic
Lithuania
U.A.E.
Iceland
Romania
United
Kingdom
Thailand Malaysia
United States
Ireland
Bulgaria Kazakhstan
Chile
Montenegro
France
Costa Rica
Mexico
Uruguay
Albania
Brazil
Argentina
Tunisia
Colombia
Qatar
Jordan
Indonesia
Peru
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy
0.80
0.36
1.00
1.20
35
Motivation to learn mathematics
Fig III.3.9
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
Sweden
Shanghai-China
OECD average
I am interested in the things I learn
in mathematics
I do mathematics because I enjoy it
I look forward to my mathematics
lessons
I enjoy reading about mathematics
0
B
UK
10
20
30
40
%
50
60
70
36
Perceived self-responsibility for failure
in mathematics
Fig III.3.6
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
Sweden
Shanghai-China
OECD average
Sometimes I am just unlucky
The teacher did not get students interested in
the material
Sometimes the course material is too hard
This week I made bad guesses on the quiz
My teacher did not explain the concepts well
this week
I’m not very good at solving mathematics
problems
0
B
US
20
40
60
%
80
100
37
The parent factor
Students 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.
High impact on outcomes
41
41
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement

Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the
Capacity
system and aligned with
high stakes gateways and
Resources
at point of delivery
where they yield most
instructional systems

Coherence

Low feasibility
Well established delivery chain
throughinstructional
which
Gateways,
curricular goals translate into instructional
systemssystems,
instructional practices and student learning (intended,
implemented and
achieved)
A learning
system
High level of metacognitive content of instruction …
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
B
Netherlands
Croatia
Hong Kong-China
Japan
Thailand
Serbia
Viet Nam
Hungary
Singapore
Bulgaria
Liechtenstein
Macao-China
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Austria
U.A.E.
Korea
Indonesia
Italy
Germany
Albania
Montenegro
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Israel
Malaysia
Slovak Republic
Shanghai-China
Costa Rica
Mexico
Tunisia
Qatar
Chinese Taipei
Kazakhstan
Australia
OECD average
Turkey
Colombia
Canada
Chile
Estonia
Portugal
Jordan
United States
Romania
France
Peru
Slovenia
Latvia
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Belgium
Ireland
Russian Fed.
Iceland
Brazil
Lithuania
Poland
Argentina
Denmark
Sweden
Greece
Norway
Spain
Finland
Most schools look at students’ past academic performance when
considering admission
Fig IV.1.6
Students in schools whose principals reported that "students' records of academic
performance" or "recommendations of feeder schools" is always considered for admission
100
90
80
70
% 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
43
High impact on outcomes
43Capacity
Lessons from high performers




at the point of delivery
Quick wins
Must haves
Attracting, developing and retaining high quality
Commitment
universal
achievement
teachers and school
leaders andto
a work
organisation
in
which they can use their potential
Capacity
Instructional leadership and human resourceResources
at point of delivery
management in schools
where they yield most
Keeping teaching an attractive profession
Gateways, instructional
System-wide career development …
systems
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
1.3
-0.1
-0.3
B
Korea
Estonia
Israel
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Malaysia
Slovenia
Italy
Poland
Singapore
Argentina
Costa Rica
Netherlands
Portugal
Colombia
Bulgaria
France
Finland
Tunisia
Lithuania
Qatar
Macao-China
Thailand
Spain
Greece
Switzerland
Romania
Norway
Russian Fed.
Japan
Austria
Montenegro
Croatia
Canada
U.A.E.
OECD average
Germany
Denmark
Hungary
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Hong Kong-China
Belgium
Iceland
Jordan
Peru
Viet Nam
Ireland
United States
Chile
Czech Republic
Serbia
Turkey
Mexico
Indonesia
Uruguay
Shanghai-China
Slovak Republic
Sweden
Brazil
New Zealand
Australia
Chinese Taipei
Albania
Mean index difference
Teacher shortage is more of concern in disadvantaged schools
Fig IV.3.5
Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools
1.5
Disadvantaged and public schools
reported more teacher shortage
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
Advantaged and private schools
reported more teacher shortage
-0.5
High impact on outcomes
45
45
Lessons from high performers

Quick wins
Must haves
Incentives, accountability, knowledge management
Commitment to universal achievement

Aligned incentive structures
For students
Capacity
Resources
gateways affect the strength, direction,
clarity and nature of the
at point ofHow
delivery
incentives operating on students
at each
stage
of their
education
where
they
yield
most


Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard
Gateways,
Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing
well instructional
For teachers
Coherence

Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation
A learning system

Low feasibility




Improve their own performance
and the performance of their colleagues
Pursue professional development opportunities
that lead to stronger pedagogical practices
systems
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
A balance between vertical and lateral accountability
accountability
Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread
innovation – communication within the system and with
stakeholders around it
Money pits
Lowtohanging
A capable centre with authority and legitimacy
act fruits
Low impact on outcomes
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies
Fig IV.1.16
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment
x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and
instructional materials)
Score points
485
480
475
470
465
460
Standardised math
policy
455
No standardised
math policy
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more collaboration
School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers
participating in school management
Across all participating countries and economies
Score points
485
480
475
470
465
460
Teachers participate in
management
455
Teachers don't participate in
management
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Fig IV.1.17
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements
Fig IV.1.16
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment
x system's level of posting achievement data publicly
Score points
478
476
474
472
470
468
466
School data public
464
School data not public
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
%
Finland
Uruguay
Greece +
Switzerland +
Ireland +
Belgium +
Sweden +
Japan +
Germany +
Norway +
Italy +
Hungary +
Slovak Republic
Tunisia
Denmark +
OECD average 2003 +
Spain
Australia +
Luxembourg +
Liechtenstein +
Netherlands +
Latvia Korea +
New Zealand +
Iceland +
Brazil +
United States
Macao-China +
Austria +
Indonesia
Turkey +
Czech Republic +
Mexico
Hong Kong-China +
Thailand +
Portugal +
Russian Federation +
Poland
Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student
assessment data to monitor teachers
2012
Fig IV.4.19
Percentage of students in schools that use assessment data to monitor teachers:
2003
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
51
Quality assurance and school improvement
Fig IV.4.14
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the
following for quality assurance and improvement:
Sweden
Singapore
OECD average
Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics
Regular consultation with one or more experts over a
period of at least six months with the aim of improving…
Teacher mentoring
Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons,
teachers or resources)
External evaluation
Internal evaluation/self-evaluation
Systematic recording of data, including teacher and
student attendance and graduation rates, test results…
Written specification of student-performance standards
Written specification of the school's curriculum and
educational goals
0
20
40
60
%
80
100
High impact on outcomes
52
52
Quick wins
Lessons from high performers
Must haves
to universal
achievement
 Commitment
Investing resources
where
they can
make most
Capacityof a difference

Alignment of resourcesResources
with key challenges (e.g.
at point of delivery
where
they yield
mostto the most
attracting the most
talented
teachers
challenging classrooms)
Gateways, instructional

Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality
systems
teachers over smaller classes
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
Money makes a difference – but only up to a point
650
Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000
Shanghai-China
Mathematics performance (score points)
Fig IV.1.8
Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more
600
Singapore
Korea
550
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands
PolandCanadaFinland
Viet Nam
Estonia
Belgium
Germany
Czech Republic
Australia Austria
New ZealandSlovenia
Denmark
Ireland
Latvia
France
UK
Norway
Portugal
Iceland
Lithuania
Slovak Republic
Croatia
Italy Sweden United States
Israel
Hungary
Spain
Turkey
500
R² = 0.01
Luxembourg
450
Bulgaria
Thailand
Chile
Mexico
Montenegro
Uruguay
Malaysia
400
Tunisia Brazil
Jordan
Colombia
Peru
350
R² = 0.37
300
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)
180 000
200 000
Among high-income countries
high-performers pay teachers more
Fig IV.1.10
Mathematics performance (score points)
650
Per capita GDP less than USD 20 000
In 33 countries schools where a higher
600 share of principals reported that
teacher shortages hinder learning tend
to show lower performance
550
Shanghai-China
Per capita GDP over USD 20 000
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Korea
Macao-China
Japan
R² = 0.09
Netherlands
Finland
Canada
Belgium
Austria
Germany
Australia
Czech Rep.
Iceland
Ireland
Latvia
France
Denmark
New Zealand
Slovenia UK
Slovak Rep.
Norway
Italy Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
USA
Hungary
Croatia
Israel Sweden Lithuania
Romania
Greece
Bulgaria Thailand
Malaysia
Uruguay
Chile
Tunisia
Montenegro
Qatar
Indonesia
Colombia
Argentina Peru
Jordan
Estonia
500
450
400
Poland
Among low-income countries a
host of other resources are the
principal barriers
350
R² = 0.05
300
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Teachers' salaries relative to per capita GDP (%)
160
180
200
220
Countries with better performance in mathematics tend
to allocate educational resources more equitably
700
Adjusted by per capita GDP
650
Mathematics performance (score points)
Fig IV.1.11
30% of the variation in math
performance across OECD countries is
600
explained by the degree of similarity of
educational resources between
550advantaged and disadvantaged schools
500
450
Mexico
Costa Rica
400
Shanghai-China
Chinese Taipei
Korea
R² = 0.19
Viet Nam Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Estonia
Japan Poland
Slovenia
Switzerland
Latvia
Finland
Canada
Belgium
Germany
Macao-China
Slovak Rep.
New Zealand
IrelandIceland France
Austria UK
Spain
Denmark
Australia
Croatia
Israel
Romania
Sweden
Portugal Hungary
Bulgaria
Turkey
USA
Greece
Norway
Italy
Serbia
Thailand
Malaysia
Chile
Kazakhstan
Uruguay
Jordan
Brazil
Indonesia UAE
Montenegro
Colombia
Tunisia
Argentina
Luxembourg
Peru
350
Qatar
300
1.5
1
Less
equity
0.5
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
0
-0.5
qualified teachers.
Equity in resource allocation
(index points)
Greater
equity
High impact on outcomes
57
57
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement

Capacity
at point of delivery
Coherence of policies and practices
Alignment of policies
across all aspects of the system
Coherence

Coherence
of policies
over sustained periods of time
Low
feasibility

Consistency
of implementation

Fidelity of implementation
(without excessive control)

Money pits
CAN
Resources
where they yield most
Gateways, instructional
systems
A learning system
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
58
58
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement
Capacity
at point of delivery
Resources
where they yield most
Gateways, instructional
systems
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
What it all means
59
59
Lessons from high performers
Average education systems
High performers
Student inclusion
Some students learn at high levels
All students need to learn at high levels
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Routine cognitive skills, rote learning
Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways
of working
Teacher quality
Few years more than secondary
High-level professional knowledge workers
Work organisation
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical
Flat, collegial
Accountability
Primarily to authorities
Primarily to peers and stakeholders
Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org
• All national and international publications
• The complete micro-level database
Thank you !
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: SchleicherEDU
and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion