Non-adjudicated regions
Non-adjudicated regions
Data for which adherence to the PISA sampling standards at subnational levels was assessed by the countries concerned.
In these countries, adherence to the PISA sampling standards and international comparability was internationally adjudicated only for the combined set of all subnational entities.
Note: unless otherwise specified, all the data contained in the following tables are drawn from the oecD PISA Database.
© OECD 2010 153
PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV
Annex B1 : Results foR countRies And economies
Annex B1 Results foR countRies And economies
[ Part 1/1 ]
Table IV.1.1a selected characteristics of school systems with reading performance at the oecd average
four areas
V high vertical differentiation v low vertical differentiation
1. selecting and
h high horizontal differentiation at the system level
grouping students (figure IV.3.2)
h Medium horizontal differentiation at the system level
h low horizontal differentiation at the system level hsc high horizontal differentiation at the school level hsc low horizontal differentiation at the school level
2. Governance
A More school autonomy for curriculum and assessment
of schools
a less school autonomy for curriculum and assessment
(figure IV.3.5)
c More school competition
c less school competition
3. assessment and
B frequent use of assessment or achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes
accountability
b Infrequent use of assessment or achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes
policies (figure IV.3.6)
D frequent use of assessment or achievement data for decision making
d Infrequent use of assessment or achievement data for decision making
4. resources
e high cumulative expenditure by educational institutions per student aged 6 to 15
invested
e low cumulative expenditure by educational institutions per student aged 6 to 15
in education (figure IV.3.7)
S large class size and high teachers’ salaries
s Small class size and/or low teachers’ salaries
strength of
four areas
relationship between students’
socio-economic
1. 2. assessment and
resources
Performance
Countries with similar in reading
background and
selecting and
in education system characteristics (score points)
reading performance grouping students
of schools
policies
(figure IV.3.7) in the four areas Chinese Taipei
(% variance explained)
(figure IV.3.2)
(figure IV.3.5)
(figure IV.3.6)
— liechtenstein
11.8 v + h + hsc
12.6 v + h + hsc
united Kingdom
13.7 v + h + hsc
Australia, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, United States
sweden
13.4 v + h + hsc
Australia, Canada, Iceland, United Kingdom, United States
14.5 v + h + hsc
— united states
age impact
eading performance
16.5 V + h + hsc
a ver of socio-economic bac on r
16.8 v + h + hsc
Australia, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, United Kingdom
17.9 V + h + hsc
age impact ver
Hungary
ound on r
ve-a
kgr
26.0 v + h + hsc
abo of socio-economic bac performance
Note: cells shaded in grey are the most prevailing patterns among school systems with above-average reading performance and a below-average impact of socio-economic background on reading performance within each of the four areas. 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285
154 © OECD 2010 PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV
Results foR countRies And economies: Annex B1
[ Part 1/1 ]
Table IV.1.1b selected characteristics of school systems with reading performance below the oecd average
four areas
V high vertical differentiation v low vertical differentiation
1. selecting and
h high horizontal differentiation at the system level
grouping students (figure IV.3.2)
h Medium horizontal differentiation at the system level
h low horizontal differentiation at the system level hsc high horizontal differentiation at the school level hsc low horizontal differentiation at the school level
2. Governance
A More school autonomy for curriculum and assessment
of schools
a less school autonomy for curriculum and assessment
(figure IV.3.5)
c More school competition
c less school competition
3. assessment and
B frequent use of assessment or achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes
accountability
b Infrequent use of assessment or achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes
policies
D frequent use of assessment or achievement data for decision making
(figure IV.3.6)
d Infrequent use of assessment or achievement data for decision making
4. resources
e high cumulative expenditure by educational institutions per student aged 6 to 15
invested
e low cumulative expenditure by educational institutions per student aged 6 to 15
in education (figure IV.3.7)
S large class size and high teachers’ salaries
s Small class size and/or low teachers’ salaries
strength of
four areas
relationship between students’
1. 2. assessment and
resources
Performance
Countries with similar in reading
and reading
selecting and
system characteristics (score points) (% variance explained)
performance
grouping students
of schools
policies
in education
in the four areas Macao-China
(figure IV.3.2)
(figure IV.3.5)
(figure IV.3.6)
(figure IV.3.7)
— Trinidad and Tobago
Bulgaria Montenegro
eading performance
10.0 v + h + hsc
age impact of socio-economic ver
10.3 v + h + hsc
Estonia, New Zealand, Poland, Lithuania, Russian Federation
— russian federation
Croatia
ound on r w-a kgr
11.0 v + h + hsc
belo bac
11.3 v + h + hsc
Estonia, New Zealand, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania
11.8 v + h + hsc
Azerbaijan Kazakhstan
10.7 v + h + hsc
12.0 v + h + hsc
12.5 v + h + hsc
— Czech republic
12.5 v + h + hsc
Slovak Republic brazil
12.4 v + h + hsc
13.0 V + h + hsc
Shanghai-China romania
13.3 v + h + hsc
Kyrgyzstan lithuania
13.6 v + h + hsc
13.6 v + h + hsc
Estonia, New Zealand, Poland, Latvia, Russian Federation
— spain
Dubai (uae)
14.2 v + h + hsc
13.6 V + h + hsc
14.5 V + h + hsc
14.3 v + h + hsc
Romania slovak republic
age impact of socio-economic bac eading performance ver
14.6 v + h + hsc
Czech Republic Colombia
a on r
14.6 v + h + hsc
16.6 V + h + hsc
16.6 v + h + hsc
18.1 V + h + hsc
18.7 V + h + hsc
18.0 V + h + hsc
19.0 v + h + hsc
age impact
19.6 V + h + hsc
Serbia uruguay
ver
ound on
20.2 v + h + hsc
20.7 V + h + hsc
abo of socio-economic bac reading performance
27.4 V + h + hsc
Note: cells shaded in grey are the most prevailing patterns among school systems with above-average reading performance and a below-average impact of socio-economic
background on reading performance within each of the four areas. 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932343285
© OECD 2010 155
PISA 2009 ReSultS: WhAt MAkeS A School SucceSSful? – VoluMe IV
Annex B1 : Results foR countRies And economies
[ Part 1/4 ]
Table IV.2.1 correlations between system-level characteristics and educational outcomes OECD countries
Variance in reading
Variance in reading Change in reading
performance
performance performance per unit
explained by
explained by increase in
the PISA index
the PISA index of the PISA index
of economic, social
economic, social of economic, social
and cultural status
and cultural status of and cultural status
Reading performance
of students
students and schools of students
Without With Without With accounting accounting accounting accounting accounting accounting accounting accounting
for GDP/
for GDP/
for GDP/
for GDP/
for GDP/ for GDP/ for GDP/ for GDP/
capita capita capita capita
Average age of entry
Vertical
into primary school
0.16 0.12 0.28 0.24 -0.17 -0.12
differentiation
Percentage of students who repeated one or more grades
Each additional year of selection prior to the age of 15
Number of school types
Selecting at the system
or distinct educational programmes
and grouping level
available for 15-year-olds
students
Percentage of students in selective schools
Percentage of students in schools that group students by ability
0.18 0.25 0.27 0.36 -0.11 -0.20
Horizontal
in all subjects
differentiation at the school
Percentage of students in schools
level
that transfer students to other schools due to low achievement,
behavioural problems or special learning needs