Indicators of school choice (lower secondary)

Freedom for parents to choose a public school

Financial incentives and disincentives

for their child(ren)

for school choice

Tuition tax credits are

School vouchers

available to Responsibility for

(also referred to

help families informing parents

as scholarships)

offset costs about school

are available

of private choices available

Public schools

and applicable

schooling to them

p rm oh G fo r in fo h sc w it e in ta Year of

Th co n reference

Belgium (Fl.)

OECD Belgium (Fr.) a

Chile Czech Republic a

no yes yes Estonia a a 2008

a Finland a 2008

no yes no Germany a 2008

a no yes m Hungary a a 2008

no yes m Ireland a 2008

a Israel a 2008

no yes no Italy a 2008

a Japan a 2008

Luxembourg a, 1

a no yes no Netherlands a 2008

no yes no New Zealand a 2008

yes yes no Scotland a a 2008

yes yes no Slovak Republic a 2008

Slovenia Spain

Switzerland a a, 1

United States

a yes yes yes Argentina b 2008

Azerbaijan a m

mmm

P artners Brazil

Chinese Taipei Colombia b

Dubai (UAE)

Hong Kong-China

mmm Kyrgyzstan b b 2008

Liechtenstein b, 1

mmm

Lithuania Macao-China b

no yes no Montenegro b 2008

a a a a yes no Panama b 2008

mmm Peru b 2008

Romania Shanghai-China b

mmm

a no yes no Singapore b 2008

Trinidad and Tobago

1. colum (13): Yes, but information is limited to public forms of school choice

2. Schools which are publicly funded and privately managed are included in the category of “public schools”. Sources: a. Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators (oecD, 2010a). for further notes, see Education at a Glance (oecD, 2010a) Annex 3, available on line:

www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010

b. PISA system-level data collection in 2010.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285

PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV

ANNEX B1 : Results foR countRies and economies

[ Part2/3 ]

Table IV.3.7 school choice: system level

Changes in school choice over 25 years (lower secondary)

Expansion of school choice within the public school

Government-dependent private schools and their role in providing

sector over the past 25 years

compulsory education at the lower secondary level

Public schools

Government-dependent private schools

vate vate hoice hool

w funding

hool c

om w

y education

estrictions

xisting

es and policies,

hool c

omote sc

w options fr hoose es and policies, hool c

omote sc

hools ha

educed r

xisting public

ease sc

ve been e

educed r

omoted the y for e ease sc

ve r

hoice among e

hools

ve included the cr

hoose

w options fr

ve permitted gr

ocedur

ve included ne

vernment-dependent

ve r

hoice among e

ocedur

y for e

vide compulsor e permitted to oper

hool ha

ve pr ents can c ve permitted ve included ne

hool c

w autonomous public sc

ents can c

hools, including decisions about sc

olment pr

h can incr

hanisms that pr

vernment-dependent pri

vate sc

hool c

h par olment pr h can incr hanisms that pr

Year of

Opportunities for sc

among public sc

expanded since 1985

Reforms ha

to sc

public sc

Reforms ha

of ne

to offer ne

par

Reforms ha

sc hools ar

and pr

Opportunities for families to

choose a go

pri

since 1985

Reforms ha

to sc

go vernment-dependent pri

sc hools Reforms ha cr eation of additional vernment-dependent pri go sc hools, to offer ne w hic Reforms ha gr eater autonom vernment-dependent pri go sc hools, including decisions about enr w hic Reforms ha mec choice

Austria a a 2008

Belgium (Fl.)

OECD Belgium (Fr.) a 2008

Chile a 2008

Czech Republic a a 2008

Estonia a 2008

France a Germany a

Greece a 2008

a a a a no

Hungary a 2008

Ireland a 2008

a a a a no

Israel a 2008

Italy a 2008

Japan a 2008

Luxembourg a, 1

New Zealand a a 2008

Slovak Republic

Slovenia a a, 1

Switzerland a a, 1

United States

Argentina b 2008

Azerbaijan a m

mmm

P artners Brazil

Bulgaria b b, 1

Chinese Taipei b 2008

Dubai (UAE)

Hong Kong-China

Kazakhstan b m

mmm

Kyrgyzstan b 2008

Liechtenstein b, 1

Montenegro b 2008

Peru b b 2008

Shanghai-China b Singapore

Trinidad and Tobago

1. colum (13): Yes, but information is limited to public forms of school choice

www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010

b. PISA system-level data collection in 2010.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285

220 © OECD 2010 PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV

Results foR countRies and economies: annex B1

[ Part 3/3 ]

Table IV.3.7 school choice: system level

Changes in school choice over 25 years (lower secondary) Independent private schools and their role in providing compulsory education

at the lower secondary level

A standard curriculum or partially standardised curriculum is required according to government

Independent private schools

regulations (lower secondary)

o vide

hools ar

xpanded b

es and

vate sc

ate and pr

educed

hool c

omoted

vate sc

y for e

hoose

vate sc

hoice

h can incr

vate sc

y education

ve been e

ve r

ve pr

ve permitted

ocedur

ve included ne

hanisms that

hool c

xisting independent

hools

w options fr

eation of additional

hooling

Go sc hools Independent pri Homesc reference

vernment-dependent pri Year of

hoose an independent pri

vate sc

ents can c

olment pr

Independent pri

permitted to oper

compulsor

Opportunities for families

to c

hool ha

legislation

since 1985

Reforms ha

restrictions to sc

among e

pri

Reforms ha

the cr

independent pri

to offer ne

par

Reforms ha

gr eater autonom

independent pri

including decisions about

enr

policies, w

sc hool c

Reforms ha

funding mec

pr omote sc

Public sc

Austria a a 2008

Belgium (Fl.)

OECD Belgium (Fr.) a

yes yes no Czech Republic a 2008

no no no England a 2008

Estonia Finland a

yes yes yes Germany a 2008

a Greece a 2008

a Hungary a 2008

Israel Italy a

yes yes yes 2008

Japan a Korea a

a Netherlands a 2008

New Zealand

Norway a a, 1

yes yes yes Scotland a a 2008

m no no Slovak Republic a 2008

United States

a, 1

a no no Argentina b 2008

Azerbaijan a m

mmm

artners P Brazil

Bulgaria b b, 1

Chinese Taipei

Colombia b b, 1

Dubai (UAE)

Hong Kong-China

mmm Kyrgyzstan b 2008

a Latvia b 2008

Liechtenstein b, 1

Macao-China b b, 1

a Montenegro b 2008

a Peru b b 2008

Shanghai-China b b, 1

a Singapore b 2008

Trinidad and Tobago

1. colum (13): Yes, but information is limited to public forms of school choice

b. PISA system-level data collection in 2010.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285

PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV

ANNEX B1 : Results foR countRies and economies

[ Part 1/1 ]

school choice: school level

Table IV.3.8a Results based on school principals’ reports Percentage of students in schools where the principal reported the number of schools competing for students in the same area

Two or more other schools

One other school

No other schools

% S.E. Australia

OECD Austria

Czech Republic

New Zealand

Slovak Republic

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

artners P Azerbaijan

Dubai (UAE)

Hong Kong-China

Russian Federation

Chinese Taipei

Trinidad and Tobago

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285

Results foR countRies and economies: annex B1

[ Part 1/1 ]

school choice, by lower or upper secondary level of education

Table IV.3.8b Results based on school principals’ reports

Lower secondary education (ISCED 2)

Upper secondary education (ISCED 3)

Difference between lower and

Number of schools competing for students

upper secondary

in the same area

education in the percentages of schools competing for students in the

same area with Two or more

at least one other other schools

One

Two or more

One

other schools school %

other school

other schools

other school

S.E. Dif. in % S.E. Australia

OECD Austria

Czech Republic

c c c c c c 85.0 (2.2)

New Zealand

Slovak Republic

0.0 c -31.2

c c c c c c 54.2 (4.2)

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

P artners Azerbaijan

c c c c c c 70.8 (3.6)

Dubai (UAE)

Hong Kong-China

c c c c c c 25.6 (0.1)

Russian Federation

Chinese Taipei

Trinidad and Tobago

42.0 (3.2) -7.8 (4.1) Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold (see Annex A3). 1 2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285

PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV

ANNEX B1 : Results foR countRies and economies

[ Part 1/3 ]

Percentage of students and performance in reading, mathematics and science, by type of school

Table IV.3.9 Results based on school principals’ reports

Government or public schools 1 Government-dependent private schools 2

Performance on the Performance

on the reading

mathematics

on the science

on the reading mathematics on the science

scale scale

centage of

Mean

Mean Mean

S.E. score S.E. score S.E. Australia

Per students

OECD Belgium

Czech Republic

New Zealand

Slovak Republic

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

P artners Azerbaijan

Dubai (UAE)

Hong Kong-China

c c c c c c 83.8 (0.0)

Russian Federation

Chinese Taipei

Trinidad and Tobago

0.0 c c c c c c c Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold (see Annex A3).

1. Schools which are directly controlled or managed by: i) a public education authority or agency or ii) a government agency directly or a governing body, most of whose members are either appointed by a public authority or elected by public franchise.

2. Schools which receive 50% or more of their core funding (i.e. funding that supports the basic educational services of the institution) from government agencies.

1 3. Schools which receive less than 50% of their core funding (i.e. funding that supports the basic educational services of the institution) from government agencies. 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285

Results foR countRies and economies: annex B1

[ Part 2/3 ]

Percentage of students and performance in reading, mathematics and science, by type of school

Table IV.3.9 Results based on school principals’ reports Difference

in performance on the reading scale between public and private schools (government-dependent and

Government-independent private schools 3

schools combined) Percentage of

on the reading scale

on the mathematics scale

on the science scale

Dif. students

(Pub. – Priv.) S.E. Australia

S.E.

Mean score

S.E.

Mean score

S.E.

Mean score

OECD Belgium

Czech Republic

0.0 c c c c c c c -36 (24.9)

c c c c c c -11 (21.0)

Finland

0.0 c c c c c c c -7 (18.7)

0.0 c c c c c c c -18 (25.9)

c c c c c c -15 (14.5)

c c c c c c -9 (3.4)

0.0 c c c c c c c 13 (14.5)

New Zealand

Slovak Republic

0.0 c c c c c c c -24 (15.8)

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

artners P Azerbaijan

Dubai (UAE)

Hong Kong-China

c c c c c c 22 (10.4)

Russian Federation

Chinese Taipei

Trinidad and Tobago

(6.0) Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold (see Annex A3).

2. Schools which receive 50% or more of their core funding (i.e. funding that supports the basic educational services of the institution) from government agencies.

PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV

ANNEX B1 : Results foR countRies and economies

[ Part 3/3 ]

Percentage of students and performance in reading, mathematics and science, by type of school

Table IV.3.9 Results based on school principals’ reports Difference in performance on the reading scale

between public and private schools after accounting for the PISA index of economic, social

PISA index of economic, social and cultural status

and cultural status of:

Indicators of school choice (lower secondary)