View
52
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Where is real progress being made in providing equitable education?IIEP Strategic Debates
Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills
PISA in brief - 2015
In 2015, over half a million students…- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 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- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation
Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
Trends in science performance (PISA)
2006 2009 2012 2015450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD average
Stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce
Trends in science performance (PISA)
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD average
350
400
450
500
550 SingaporeJapan
EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland Macao (China)CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSloveniaAustraliaUnited KingdomGermanyNetherlands
SwitzerlandIrelandBelgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
SwedenCzech Rep. Spain Latvia RussiaLuxembourg ItalyHungary LithuaniaCroatia IcelandIsraelMaltaSlovak Rep.
GreeceChile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguayRomania
Moldova TurkeyTrinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico MontenegroJordanIndonesia BrazilPeru
LebanonTunisia
FYROM Kosovo AlgeriaDominican Rep. (332)
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Hig
her
perf
oman
ceScience performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries combine excellence with equity
High performanceHigh equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow equity
More equity
0510152025350
400
450
500
550
Brazil
BulgariaChile
Mexico Montenegro
Slovenia
Thailand
United States
Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
More equity
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)
Some countries improved equity
Hig
her
perf
oman
ceHigh performance
High equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow equity
-2 -1 0 1 2
300
400
500
600
700
ESCS
PISA
scie
nce
scal
e
USA 2006USA 2015
No difference
Significant difference
Greater equity
Poverty is not destiny - Science performanceby international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic 40
Koso
vo 1
0
FYRO
M 13
Mont
eneg
ro 1
1
Unite
d Ar
ab E
mira
tes 3
Leba
non
27Me
xico
53
Cost
a Ri
ca 3
8
Turk
ey 5
9
Thail
and
55
Icela
nd 1
Rom
ania
20
Bulg
aria
13
Russ
ia 5
Chile
27
Lithu
ania
12
Italy
15Sp
ain 3
1
Croa
tia 1
0
OECD
ave
rage
12
Malta
13
Maca
o (C
hina
) 22
Aust
ria 5
Luxe
mbo
urg
14
Czec
h Re
publ
ic 9
Aust
ralia
4
Cana
da 2
Kore
a 6
Switz
erlan
d 8
Slov
enia
5
Finlan
d 2
Viet
Nam
76
Japa
n 8
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
) 52
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Scor
e po
ints
Figure I.6.7
% of students in the bottom international
deciles of ESCS
OECD median student
Students expecting a career in scienceFigure I.3.2
Dom
inica
n Re
p. ..
.Jo
rdan
6
Mexi
co
6Le
bano
n 1
5Pe
ru
7Un
ited
Stat
es
13Tu
nisia
19
Slov
enia
16
Aust
ralia
15
Mala
ysia
4
Spai
n 1
1Ur
ugua
y 1
7Tr
inid
ad a
nd T
. 1
3CA
BA (A
rg.)
19
Bulg
aria
25
Koso
vo
7Ma
lta
11Ne
w Ze
alan
d 2
4Es
toni
a 1
5Be
lgiu
m
16FY
ROM
20
Icela
nd
22HK
G (C
hina
) 2
0Ita
ly
17Mo
ldov
a
7Mo
nten
egro
18
Luxe
mbo
urg
18
Maca
o (C
hina
) 1
0Sw
eden
21
Viet
Nam
13
Kore
a
7Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
...
Finla
nd
24Cz
ech
Repu
blic
22
Neth
erla
nds
19
Indo
nesia
19
05
101520253035404550
Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30Science-related technicians and associate pro-
fessionalsInformation and communication technology pro-fessionalsHealth professionals
%
% o
f stu
dent
s with
va
gue
or m
issin
g ex
-pe
ctati
ons
300 400 500 600 7000
10
20
30
40
50 Low enjoyment of scienceHigh enjoyment of science
Score points in science
Perc
enta
ge o
f st
uden
ts e
xpec
ting
a
care
er in
sci
ence
Students expecting a career in scienceby performance and enjoyment of learning
Figure I.3.17
SingaporeCanadaSloveniaAustralia
United KingdomIreland
Portugal
Chinese TaipeiHong Kong (China)
New ZealandDenmark
JapanEstoniaFinland
Macao (China)Viet Nam
B-S-J-G (China)Korea
GermanyNetherlandsSwitzerland
BelgiumPoland
SwedenLithuaniaCroatiaIcelandGeorgiaMalta
United StatesSpainIsrael
United Arab Emirates
BrazilBulgaria
ChileColombiaCosta Rica
Dominican RepublicJordanKosovo
LebanonMexico
PeruQatar
Trinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkey
Uruguay
Above-average science performance
Stronger than average beliefs in science
Above-average percentage of students expecting to work in a science-related occupation
Norway
Mul
tiple
out
com
es
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Less
ons f
rom
PIS
A
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
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
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance
Figure II.6.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200300
350
400
450
500
550
600
HungaryCosta Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
UruguayBulgaria
Mexico
Thailand MontenegroColombia Dominican Republic
Peru
Georgia
411.131522189847
Luxembourg
SwitzerlandNorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
IcelandDenmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
JapanSlovenia
AustraliaGermany
IrelandFranceItaly
PortugalNew Zealand
Korea Spain
PolandIsrael
Estonia
Czech Rep.
LatviaSlovak Rep.
Russia
CroatiaLithuania
R² = 0.413999972734452
R² = 0.00700673877676472
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
Scie
nce
perf
orm
ance
(sc
ore
poin
ts)
Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Pe
ruUn
ited
Arab
Em
irate
sJo
rdan
Braz
ilTu
rkey
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
icUr
ugua
yB-
S-J-G
(Chi
na)
Japa
nLu
xem
bour
gPo
rtuga
lIta
lyCr
oatia
Alge
riaIsr
ael
Swed
enMo
ldov
aSl
oven
iaHu
ngar
yVi
et N
amSi
ngap
ore
Gree
ceCa
nada
Qata
rKo
sovo
Kore
aSw
itzer
land
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)FY
ROM
Alba
nia
Slov
ak R
epub
licEs
toni
aCo
sta
Rica
Latv
ia
-3
-2
-1
0
1Index of shortage of educational material
Mea
n in
dex
diffe
renc
e be
twee
n ad
-va
ntag
ed a
nd d
isadv
anta
ged
scho
ols
Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools
Croati
a 16
Austr
ia
9
Chine
se Ta
ipei
8
Slova
k Rep
ublic
11
Switze
rland
8
Austr
alia
10
Greece
5
Monten
egro
6
Cana
da 1
4
Irelan
d 8
Italy
3
Japan
3
Qatar
5
Hong K
ong (
China
) 24
Brazil
8
Costa
Rica
3
Colom
bia
6
Singa
pore
1
Georgi
a 1
Roman
ia 2
Finlan
d 4
Spain
16
Alban
ia 2
Bulga
ria <
1
Israel
7
Denmark
1
Eston
ia <
1
Peru
1
Moldov
a 6
Latvia
1
Netherl
ands
16
Mexico
4
Macao (
China)
19
Icelan
d 3
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40Percentage-point difference between students in socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools who are required to attend at least one science course per week
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ceDifferences in the requirement to attend regular science lessons, by schools' socio-economic profile
Figure II.2.5
Students in socio-economically advantaged schools are more likely to be required to attend
at least one science course per week
Students in socio-economically disadvantaged schools are more likely to be required to attend at least one science course
per week
Percentage of students who are not required to attend any science course
0
5
10
15
20
25
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profileBefore accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Science-specific resources at school and science performance
Figure II.2.7
Switz
erla
ndIce
land
Norw
ayNe
ther
land
sUr
ugua
yLe
bano
nBr
azil
Germ
any
Turk
eyCh
ileTu
nisia
Israe
lBe
lgiu
mTh
aila
ndMe
xico
Swed
enIre
land
Colo
mbi
aNe
w Ze
alan
dTr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
oBu
lgar
iaMa
ltaCr
oatia
Slov
ak R
epub
licIn
done
siaHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
Latv
iaDo
min
ican
Repu
blic
Lithu
ania
Hung
ary
Aust
ralia
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
)Al
bani
aEs
toni
aMo
ldov
a
0102030405060708090
100Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Science competitions offered at school, by schools' socio-economic profile
Figure II.2.10
%
Swed
enRus
sia
Bulgari
a
Norway
Denmark
Singa
pore
Belgium Sp
ain
Urugua
y
Macao
(Chin
a)
B-S-J-G
(Chin
a)
German
y
Lithu
ania
Thail
and
Croatia
Chines
e Taip
ei
Polan
dKo
rea
Luxe
mbourg
Monten
egro
New Zea
land
United
State
s
Costa
Rica
United
Arab Em
irates
Austra
liaChil
e
Tunis
iaTu
rkey
0
1
2
3
4
5Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
% st
uden
ts
Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically …
Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile
Table II.6.51
OECD average
Japa
n
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
)
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)
Neth
erla
nds
Belg
ium
Hung
ary
Swed
en
Switz
erla
nd
Aust
ria
Croa
tia
Norw
ay
Denm
ark
Gree
ce
Pola
nd
Unite
d Ar
ab E
mir.
..
Esto
nia
Irela
nd
Latv
ia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
Aust
ralia
Thai
land
Finla
nd
Cost
a Ri
ca
Qata
r
Bulg
aria
Braz
il
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic
Italy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20-15-10-505
101520
Percentage of students who had skipped a whole day of school at least once in the two weeks prior to the PISA testSpalte2
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ce %
Students skipping a whole day of school, by schools’ socio-economic profile
Figure II.3.3
Students in advantaged schools skipped a whole day of school more
often
Students in disadvantaged schools skipped a whole day of school more often
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profileBefore accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning and science performance
Figure II.3.10
05
10152025303540
After accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schoolsBefore accounting for science performance and the socio-economic profile of students and schoolsz-scores
Explaining students' expectations of a career in scienceFigure II.2.22
Science-specific resources
Science activities Learning time Teaching strategies in science lessons
C
onfid
ence
No association
First
age
at s
elec
tion
in th
e ed
ucat
ion
sy...
Reco
mm
enda
tion
of fe
eder
scho
ols a
lway
s...
Stud
ent’s
reco
rd o
f aca
dem
ic pe
rform
ance
...
Perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s in
voca
tiona
l or .
..
Mean
scor
e in
scie
nce
Num
ber o
f sch
ool t
ypes
or e
duca
tiona
l ...
Abili
ty g
roup
ing
betw
een
class
es fo
r all
su...
Varia
tion
in sc
ienc
e pe
rform
ance
Grad
e re
petit
ion
(at l
east
onc
e)
-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.5
Stan
dard
ised
regr
essio
n co
efficie
nts
Factors associated with equity in science performance
Figure II.5.13
More equity in science performance
Less equity in science performance
First age at selection in the education system and index of teacher support in science lessons
Figure II.3.11
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17-0.6
-0.4
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
10
Austria
Belgium
84
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
12
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
5
Ireland
IsraelItaly Japan
Korea Latvia
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
9
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
SpainSweden
Switzerland
Turkey 11
3
Albania
Brazil
B-S-J-G (China)
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Dominican Rep.
FYROM
Georgia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
1
LithuaniaMacao (China)
7
Montenegro
26
Romania
Russia
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
UruguayViet Nam
R² = 0.360338547715815
First age at selection in the education system
Inde
x of
tea
cher
sup
port
in s
cien
ce le
sson
s
1. Jordan2. Peru3. United States4. Chile5. Iceland6. Qatar7. Malta8. Canada9. New Zealand10. Australia11. United Kingdom12. Finland
In education systems with early tracking students are less likely to report that their science teachers support students in their learning
Low expenses as a reason for choosing school, by schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.17
Scot
land
(UK)
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic
Mexi
co
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)
Maca
o (C
hina
)
Italy
Kore
a
OECD
ave
rage
Germ
any
Belg
ium
(Fle
mm
ish)
Fran
ce
Geor
gia
Irela
nd
Portu
gal
Chile
Croa
tia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Spai
n
Malta
-50-40-30-20-10
0102030
0102030405060708090100
Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schoolsPercentage of parents who consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important"
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
%Low expenses are more
important for parents whose children attend advantaged
schools
Low expenses are more important for parents whose
children attend disadvantaged schools
Luxe
mbo
urg
Belg
ium
(Fle
mm
ish)
Portu
gal
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)
Malta
Italy
Germ
any
Irela
nd
OECD
ave
rage
Geor
gia
Maca
o (C
hina
)
Croa
tia
Chile
Spai
n
Mexi
co
Kore
a
Scot
land
(UK)
Fran
ce
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic
-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10
01020
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Schools’ low expenses as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance
Figure II.4.17
Students whose parents consider schools' low expenses
"important" or "very important” perform lower
Students whose parents consider schools' low expenses "important" or "very important” perform
higher
School reputation as a reason for choosing school, by schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.18
Maca
o (C
hina
)
Kore
a
Italy
Croa
tia
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)
Mexi
co
Belg
ium
(Fle
mm
ish)
Portu
gal
Fran
ce
OECD
ave
rage
Scot
land
(UK)
Chile
Irela
nd
Malta
Luxe
mbo
urg
Spai
n
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic
Geor
gia
Germ
any-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0102030405060708090100
Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schoolsPercentage of parents who consider school reputation "important" or "very important"
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
%
School reputation is more important for
parents whose children attend advantaged
schools
School reputation is more important for parents whose children attend
disadvantaged schools
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)
Geor
gia
Kore
a
Maca
o (C
hina
)
Mexi
co
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic
Chile
Portu
gal
Malta
Italy
Croa
tia
Spai
n
OECD
ave
rage
Germ
any
Luxe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
Fran
ce
Belg
ium
(Fle
mm
ish)
Scot
land
(UK)
-40-30-20-10
0102030405060
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
School reputation as a reason for choosing school and students’ science performance
Figure II.4.18
Students whose parents consider school reputation "important" or "very important“
perform higher
Students whose parents consider school reputation "important" or "very important“
perform lower
Colo
mbi
aBr
azil
Urug
uay
Tuni
siaBe
lgiu
mMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Cost
a Ri
caSp
ain
Portu
gal
Luxe
mbo
urg
Peru
Chile
Fran
ceNe
ther
land
sSw
itzer
land
Germ
any
Qata
rHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
Indo
nesia
Mexi
coAu
stria
Italy
Unite
d Ar
ab E
mir.
..OE
CD a
vera
geUn
ited
Stat
esTu
rkey
Hung
ary
Israe
lJo
rdan
Irela
ndAu
stra
liaMa
ltaSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Thai
land
Rom
ania
Cana
daSi
ngap
ore
Pola
ndLa
tvia
Gree
ceNe
w Ze
alan
dBu
lgar
iaCz
ech
Repu
blic
Swed
enEs
toni
aDe
nmar
kMo
ldov
aFin
land
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mAl
bani
aLit
huan
iaSl
oven
iaMo
nten
egro
Croa
tiaRu
ssia
Geor
gia
Icela
ndCh
ines
e Ta
ipei
05
101520253035404550
PISA 2015 PISA 2009% students
Change between 2009 and 2015 in grade repetition rates
Figure II.5.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.60.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
Incr
ease
d lik
eliho
od o
f hav
ing
repe
ated
a g
rade
(odd
s ra
tio)
Students' socio-economic profile and grade repetition
Figure II.5.7
Students with a higher socio-economic status are more likely to have repeated a grade
Students with a higher socio-economic status are less likely to have repeated a grade
Croa
tiaAu
stria
Slov
enia
Italy
Mont
eneg
roFY
ROM
Bulg
aria
Belg
ium
Neth
erla
nds
Chin
ese
Taip
eiJa
pan
Hung
ary
Gree
ceKo
rea
Fran
ceKo
sovo
Turk
eyCz
ech
Repu
blic
OECD
ave
rage
Aust
ralia
Portu
gal
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Lu
xem
bour
gTh
aila
ndSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Colo
mbi
aMe
xico
Russ
iaSw
itzer
land
Indo
nesia
Alba
nia
Cost
a Ri
caGe
rman
yLit
huan
iaGe
orgi
aMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Irela
ndUr
ugua
yAl
geria
Spai
nCh
ileLa
tvia
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
)Un
ited
King
dom
Braz
ilEs
toni
aUn
ited
Arab
Em
ir...
Pola
ndDo
min
ican
Repu
blic
Swed
en
0102030405060708090
100Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Enrolment in pre-vocational or vocational programmes, by schools’ socio-economic profile
Figure II.5.9
%
Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 505
10
15
20
25
30
CABA (Argentina)
JordanViet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J(China) Turkey
Georgia
ChineseTaipei
Mexico
Russia
Albania
Hong Kong(China)
Japan
Belgium
Algeria
Colombia
Peru
Macao(China)
Switzerland
Malta
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Singapore
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
ThailandR² = 0.24784962376208
Class size in language of instruction
Stud
ent-
teac
her
ratio High student-teacher
ratios and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios and large class
sizes
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
Turk
eyVi
et N
amTu
nisia
Chin
ese
Taip
eiGr
eece
Czec
h Re
publ
icEs
toni
aFr
ance
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Me
xico
Indo
nesia
Swed
enMa
ltaLa
tvia
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
)Sl
oven
iaUn
ited
King
dom
Norw
ayCr
oatia
Peru
Cost
a Ri
caCh
ileKo
rea
Cana
daIre
land
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Germ
any
Leba
non
Pola
ndUn
ited
Arab
Em
irate
s-100-80-60-40-20
0204060
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Science performance in public and private schools
Figure II.4.14
Students in private schools perform better
Students in public schools perform better
Unite
d Ar
ab E
mira
tes
Malta
Urug
uay
Jord
anQa
tar
Braz
ilCo
lom
bia
Sing
apor
eB-
S-J-G
(Chi
na)
Viet
Nam
Israe
lTr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
oHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
Koso
voFY
ROM
Fran
ceAu
stria
Swed
enUn
ited
Stat
esBe
lgiu
mMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Finla
ndMo
ldov
aTh
aila
ndAl
geria
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mTu
nisia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Icela
ndLit
huan
iaEs
toni
aRo
man
iaCr
oatia
Pola
ndCo
sta
Rica
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools %
Perc
enta
ge-p
oint
diff
eren
ceIndex of school autonomy, by schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.7
Advantaged schools have more school autonomy
Disadvantaged schools have more school autonomy
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance and science performance
Figure II.4.8
Lower science
performance
Higher science performance
Students score lower in science when the school governing board
holds more responsibility for admissions policies
School principal Teachers School governing board
Local or regional education authority
National education authority
Recommended