Raising excellence and

equity in education

Best in Class 2018 – a global perspective

Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills

SingaporeJapan

EstoniaChinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China)

CanadaViet Nam

Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia

AustraliaUnited KingdomGermany

Netherlands

SwitzerlandIreland

Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFranceSweden

Czech Rep.Spain Latvia

RussiaLuxembourg Italy

Hungary LithuaniaCroatia IcelandIsraelMalta

Slovak Rep.

GreeceChile

Bulgaria

United Arab EmiratesUruguay

Romania

Moldova Turkey

Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia MexicoMontenegroJordan

Indonesia BrazilPeru

Lebanon

Tunisia

FYROMKosovo

Algeria

Dominican Rep. (332)

350

400

450

500

550

Me

an

sc

ien

ce

pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Hig

her

pe

rfo

man

ce

Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)

Some countries

combine excellence

with equity

More equityMore equity

Low math performance

High math performance

Mathematics performanceof the 10% most disadvantaged

American 15-year-olds (~Mexico)

Mathematics performanceof the 10% most privileged

American 15-year-olds (~Japan)

Poverty need not be destiny: PISA math performance by decile of social background

PIS

A m

ath

em

atics p

erf

orm

ance

Lessons 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

Lessons 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

Looking outwardsCoherence

Spending per student from the age of 6 to

15 and science performance

Figure II.6.2

Luxembourg

SwitzerlandNorwayAustria

Singapore

United States

United Kingdom

Malta

Sweden

Belgium

Iceland

Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

Canada

JapanSlovenia

Australia

Germany

IrelandFranceItaly

Portugal

New Zealand

Korea Spain

PolandIsrael

Estonia

Czech Rep.

LatviaSlovak Rep.

Russia

CroatiaLithuania

HungaryCosta Rica

Chinese Taipei

Chile

Brazil

Turkey

UruguayBulgaria

Mexico

Thailand MontenegroColombia

Dominican Republic

Peru

Georgia

11.7, 411

R² = 0.01

R² = 0.41

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Scie

nce p

erf

orm

an

ce (

sco

re p

oin

ts)

Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)

Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Figure I.6.14

-3

-2

-2

-1

-1

0

1

1

CA

BA

(A

rgentina

)M

exic

oP

eru

Ma

ca

o (

Ch

ina

)U

nite

d A

rab E

mira

tes

Le

ban

on

Jord

an

Co

lom

bia

Bra

zil

Indon

esia

Tu

rke

yS

pain

Do

min

ican

Rep

ublic

Geo

rgia

Uru

guay

Tha

iland

B-S

-J-G

(C

hin

a)

Austr

alia

Japa

nC

hile

Lu

xe

mbo

urg

Ru

ssia

Port

ug

al

Ma

lta

Ita

lyN

ew

Zeala

nd

Cro

atia

Irela

nd

Alg

eria

No

rwa

yIs

rael

De

nm

ark

Sw

ede

nU

nite

d S

tate

sM

old

ova

Belg

ium

Slo

ven

iaO

EC

D a

vera

ge

Hu

nga

ryC

hin

ese

Taip

ei

Vie

t N

am

Czech R

epu

blic

Sin

gapo

reT

un

isia

Gre

ece

Trin

ida

d a

nd T

obag

oC

anad

aR

om

an

iaQ

ata

rM

onte

neg

roK

osovo

Ne

therl

and

sK

ore

aF

inla

nd

Sw

itzerl

and

Germ

any

Ho

ng K

on

g (

Chin

a)

Austr

iaF

YR

OM

Pola

nd

Alb

ania

Bulg

aria

Slo

vak R

epub

licLithu

ania

Esto

nia

Icela

nd

Co

sta

Ric

aU

nite

d K

ing

dom

La

tvia

Me

an

in

de

x d

iffe

ren

ce

betw

een

ad

va

nta

ge

d

and

dis

adva

nta

ge

d s

ch

oo

ls

Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff

Disadvantaged schools have more

resources than advantaged schools

Disadvantaged schools have fewer

resources than advantaged schools

0

1

2

3

4

5

Swed

en

Esto

nia

Ru

ssia

Latv

ia

Bu

lgar

ia

Icel

and

No

rway

Hu

nga

ry

Den

mar

k

Fin

lan

d

Sin

gap

ore

Isra

el

Bel

giu

m

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

(Ch

ina)

Spai

n

Slo

vak

Rep

ub

lic

Uru

guay

Fran

ce

Mac

ao (

Ch

ina)

Bra

zil

B-S

-J-G

(C

hin

a)

Jap

an

Ger

man

y

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Lith

uan

ia

Slo

ven

ia

Thai

lan

d

Au

stri

a

Cro

atia

Ital

y

Ch

ines

e Ta

ipei

OEC

D a

vera

ge

Po

lan

d

Pe

ru

Ko

rea

Mex

ico

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Gre

ece

Mo

nte

neg

ro

Do

min

ican

Rep

ub

lic

New

Zea

lan

d

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

Swit

zerl

and

Co

sta

Ric

a

Qat

ar

Un

ite

d A

rab

Em

irat

es

Co

lom

bia

Au

stra

lia

Can

ada

Ch

ile

Irel

and

Tun

isia

Po

rtu

gal

Turk

ey

Year

s

Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sw

itzerl

and

Japa

nIc

ela

nd

Jord

an

No

rwa

yA

ustr

iaN

eth

erl

and

sA

lge

ria

Uru

guay

Ro

man

iaLe

ban

on

De

nm

ark

Bra

zil

Vie

t N

am

Germ

any

Gre

ece

Turk

ey

Ita

lyC

hile

Fra

nce

Tun

isia

Lu

xe

mbo

urg

Isra

el

CA

BA

(A

rgentina

)B

elg

ium

OE

CD

avera

ge

Tha

iland

Kosovo

Me

xic

oC

hin

ese

Taip

ei

Sw

ede

nP

eru

Irela

nd

FY

RO

MC

olo

mbia

Un

ite

d S

tate

sN

ew

Zeala

nd

Ca

nad

aT

rin

ida

d a

nd T

obag

oS

pain

Bulg

aria

Kore

aM

alta

Un

ite

d K

ing

dom

Cro

atia

Slo

ven

iaS

lovak R

epub

licG

eo

rgia

Indon

esia

Czech R

epu

blic

Ho

ng K

on

g (

Chin

a)

Qata

rLa

tvia

Sin

gapo

reD

om

inic

an

Rep

ublic

Fin

land

Lithu

ania

Un

ite

d A

rab E

mira

tes

Hu

nga

ryP

ort

ug

al

Austr

alia

Mo

nte

neg

roB

-S-J

-G (

Chin

a)

Pola

nd

Alb

ania

Co

sta

Ric

aE

sto

nia

Ru

ssia

Mo

ldova

Ma

ca

o (

Ch

ina

)

Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools

Science competitions offered at school,

by schools' socio-economic profile%

16

16 Square school choice with equity

Financial incentives

for schools

Assistance for disadvantaged

parents

Manage/ consolidate

school network

Formula-based

approaches to school financing

Admission policies,

controlled choice

Foster collaboration

/pairing among schools

Engaging parents and stakeholders

What can policy do?

Variation in performance between and within schoolsFigure I.6.11

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

Ne

therl

and

s

114

B-S

-J-G

(C

hin

a)

119

Bulg

aria

1

15

Hu

nga

ry 1

04

Trin

ida

d a

nd T

obag

o 9

8B

elg

ium

1

12

Slo

ven

ia 1

01

Germ

any 1

10

Slo

vak R

epub

lic

10

9M

alta

1

54

Un

ite

d A

rab E

mira

tes 1

10

Austr

ia

10

6Is

rael 1

26

Le

ban

on

91

Czech R

epu

blic

1

01

Qata

r 10

9Japa

n 9

7S

witzerl

and

1

10

Sin

gapo

re 1

20

Ita

ly 9

3C

hin

ese

Taip

ei 1

11

Lu

xe

mbo

urg

1

12

Turk

ey 7

0B

razil

89

Cro

atia

8

9G

reece

94

Ch

ile 8

3Lithu

ania

9

2O

EC

D a

vera

ge 1

00

Uru

guay 8

4C

AB

A (

Arg

entina

)

82

Ro

man

ia

70

Vie

t N

am

6

5K

ore

a

10

1A

ustr

alia

1

17

Un

ite

d K

ing

dom

1

11

Peru

6

6C

olo

mbia

7

2T

ha

iland

6

9H

ong K

on

g (

Chin

a)

72

FY

RO

M 8

0P

ort

ug

al 94

Do

min

ican

Rep

ublic

5

9In

don

esia

5

2G

eo

rgia

9

2Jord

an

7

9N

ew

Zeala

nd 1

21

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

108

Mo

nte

neg

ro 8

1T

un

isia

4

7S

wede

n 1

17

Me

xic

o 5

7A

lba

nia

6

9K

osovo 5

7M

aca

o (

Ch

ina

) 74

Alg

eria

54

Esto

nia

8

8M

old

ova 8

3C

osta

Ric

a 5

5R

ussia

7

6C

anad

a 9

5P

ola

nd

92

De

nm

ark

9

1La

tvia

7

5Ir

ela

nd

8

8S

pain

8

6N

orw

ay

10

3F

inla

nd

103

Icela

nd

9

3

Between-school variation Within-school variation

Total variation as a

proportion of the OECD

average

OECD average 69%

OECD average 30%

%

Teachers, teaching and learning

Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23

Finland

Germany Switzerland

Japan Estonia

Sweden

NetherlandsNew Zealand

Macao(China)

Iceland

Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei

Uruguay

Singapore

PolandUnited States

Israel

Bulgaria

Korea

Russia Italy

Greece

B-S-J-G (China)

Colombia

Chile

Mexico

Brazil

CostaRica

Turkey

MontenegroPeru

QatarThailand

UnitedArab

Emirates

Tunisia

Dominican Republic

R² = 0.21

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

35 40 45 50 55 60

PIS

A s

cie

nce s

co

re

Total learning time in and outside of school

OECD average

OECD average

OE

CD

ave

rage

Learning time and science performance (PISA)Figure II.6.23

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fin

land

Germ

any

Sw

itzerl

and

Japa

nE

sto

nia

Sw

ede

nN

eth

erl

and

sN

ew

Zeala

nd

Austr

alia

Cze

ch

Re

pu

blic

Ma

ca

o (

Ch

ina

)U

nite

d K

ing

dom

Ca

nad

aB

elg

ium

Fra

nce

No

rwa

yS

loven

iaIc

ela

nd

Lu

xe

mbo

urg

Irela

nd

La

tvia

Ho

ng K

on

g (

Chin

a)

OE

CD

avera

ge

Ch

ine

se

Taip

ei

Austr

iaP

ort

ug

al

Uru

guay

Lithu

ania

Sin

gapo

reD

enm

ark

Hu

nga

ryP

ola

nd

Slo

vak R

epub

licS

pain

Cro

atia

Un

ite

d S

tate

sIs

rael

Bulg

aria

Kore

aR

ussia

Ita

lyG

reece

B-S

-J-G

(C

hin

a)

Co

lom

bia

Ch

ileM

exic

oB

razil

Co

sta

Ric

aT

urk

ey

Mo

nte

neg

roP

eru

Qata

rT

ha

iland

Un

ite

d A

rab E

mira

tes

Tun

isia

Do

min

ican

Rep

ublic

Sco

re p

oin

ts in

scie

nce p

er

ho

ur

of

learn

ing

tim

e

Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time

30 Teachers’ skillsNumeracy test scores of tertiary graduates and teachers

Numeracy score215 235 255 275 295 315 335 355 375

SpainPolandEstonia

United StatesCanadaIreland

KoreaEngland (UK)

England/N. Ireland (UK)Denmark

Northern Ireland (UK)France

AustraliaSweden

Czech RepublicAustria

NetherlandsNorway

GermanyFlanders (Belgium)

FinlandJapan

Numeracy score

Numeracy skills of middle half of

college graduates

31 Teachers’ skillsNumeracy test scores of tertiary graduates and teachers

Numeracy score215 235 255 275 295 315 335 355 375

SpainPolandEstonia

United StatesCanadaIreland

KoreaEngland (UK)

England/N. Ireland (UK)Denmark

Northern Ireland (UK)France

AustraliaSweden

Czech RepublicAustria

NetherlandsNorway

GermanyFlanders (Belgium)

FinlandJapan

Numeracy score

Numeracy skills of teachers

What teachers say and what teachers do

96% of teachers: My role as a teacher is to facilitate students own inquiry

86%: Students learn best by findings solutions on their own

74%: Thinking and reasoning is more important than curriculum content

-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00

Prevalence of memorisationrehearsal, routine exercises, drill and

practice and/or repetition

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Switzerland

Poland

Germany

Japan

Korea

France

Sweden

Shanghai-China

Canada

Singapore

United States

Norway

Spain

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Prevalence of elaborationreasoning, deep learning, intrinsic motivation, critical thinking, creativity, non-routine problems

High Low Low High

Memorisation is less useful as problems become more difficult(OECD average)

R² = 0.81

0.70

1.00

300 400 500 600 700 800

Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale

42

Source: Figure 4.3

Difficult problem

Easy problem

Greater success

Less success

Odds ratio

Elaboration strategies are more useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average)

R² = 0.82

0.80

1.50

300 400 500 600 700 800

Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale

44

Source: Figure 6.2

Difficultproblem

Greater success

Less success

Easy problem

Odds ratio

Students in disadvantaged schools have

less exposure conceptual understanding in math

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

New

Ze

alan

dP

ort

uga

lB

razi

lQ

atar

Luxe

mb

ou

rgTu

nis

iaJo

rdan

Au

stra

liaSw

ed

en

Bel

giu

mD

enm

ark

Un

ite

d A

rab

Em

irat

es

Co

lom

bia

Arg

enti

na

Ch

ine

se T

aip

ei

Ch

ileC

zech

Re

pu

blic

Turk

ey

Net

he

rlan

ds

Mal

aysi

aC

anad

aSl

ova

k R

ep

ub

licA

ust

ria

Ind

on

esi

aR

om

ania

Co

sta

Ric

aTh

aila

nd

Swit

zerl

and

Uru

guay

Bu

lgar

iaLa

tvia

Mo

nte

ne

gro

OEC

D a

vera

geSe

rbia

Isra

el

Fran

ceG

ree

ceFi

nla

nd

Per

uM

exi

coG

erm

any

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

No

rway

Esto

nia

Un

ite

d S

tate

sH

un

gary

Ire

lan

dP

ola

nd

Vie

t N

amJa

pan

Shan

ghai

-Ch

ina

1Ic

elan

dLi

thu

ania

Ital

yC

roat

iaK

azak

hst

anSl

ove

nia

Ho

ng

Ko

ng-

Ch

ina

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tio

nSp

ain

Lie

chte

nst

ein

1Si

nga

po

reM

acao

-Ch

ina

1K

ore

a

Bottom quarter (disadvantaged students) Top quarter (advantaged students)

Source: Figure 7.1a

Exp

osu

reto

pu

rem

ath

ema

tics

More exposure

Less exposure

One-point difference in exposure to conceptual understanding predicts a 1.23 Std.Dev difference in school performance

4

646

Be experts on their discipline and experts on how students learn

Respond to individual differences with broad pedagogical repertoire

Provide continual assessment with formative feedback

Be demanding for every student with a high level of cognitive activation

Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative

Growing expectations on teachers

• Some evidence that well-being factors impact motivation, self-efficacy and job commitment

• Attrition a growing issue, with high costs

• Growing teacher shortages

Teachers’ job satisfaction

0 20 40 60 80 100

The advantages of being a teacherclearly outweigh the disadvantages

If I could decide again, I would stillchoose to work as a teacher

I would recommend my school as agood place to work

I enjoy working at this school

All in all, I am satisfied with my job

I am satisfied with my performancein this school

Percentage of teachers

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Teachers’ job satisfaction and class size

10.00

10.50

11.00

11.50

12.00

12.50

13.00

15 or less 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 or more

Teac

her

s' jo

b s

atis

fact

ion

(le

vel)

Class size (number of students)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low professionalism

High professionalism

Fig II.3.3

Perceptions of

teachers’ statusSatisfaction with

the profession

Satisfaction with the

work environment

Teachers’

self-efficacy

Teacher job satisfaction and professionalism

Policy levers to teacher professionalism

Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)

Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)

Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction,

mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)

Teacher

professionalism

Teacher professionalism

Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)

Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)

Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction,

mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Discu

ss indiv

idual

students

Share

reso

urc

es

Team

confe

rence

s

Colla

bora

te for

com

mon s

tandard

s

Team

teach

ing

Colla

bora

tive

PD

Join

t act

ivitie

s

Cla

ssro

om

obse

rvations

Perc

enta

ge o

f te

ach

ers

Average

Professional collaboration

Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month

Professional collaboration among teachers

Exchange and co-ordination

(OECD countries)

Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration

11.40

11.60

11.80

12.00

12.20

12.40

12.60

12.80

13.00

13.20

13.40

Never

Once

a y

ear

or

less

2-4

tim

es

a y

ear

5-1

0 t

imes

a y

ear

1-3

tim

es

a m

onth

Once

a w

eek o

r m

ore

Teach

er

self-e

ffic

acy

(le

vel)

Teach jointly as a team in the same class

Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback

Engage in joint activities across different classes

Take part in collaborative professional learning

Less frequently

Morefrequently

Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14

CABA (Argentina)

Jordan

Viet 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

Thailand

R² = 0.25

5

10

15

20

25

30

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Stu

de

nt-

tea

ch

er

rati

o

Class size in language of instruction

High student-teacher ratios

and small class sizes

Low student-teacher ratios

and large class sizes

OECD

average

OE

CD

ave

rage

Professionalism

Public confidence in profession and professionals

Professional preparation and learning

Collective ownership of professional practice

Decisions made in accordance with the body of knowledge o the profession

Acceptance of professional responsibility in the name of the profession and accountability towards the profession

One last thought

Research in education

Public educational research

Public expenditures in education and health as % of GDP (2014)

Share (%) of public research budget on education and health (2014)

1.8

9.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Education Health

OECD average

5.5

6.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Education Health

OECD average

Public educational research: budget per student

383

57 54

44 4236

3124 21

18 1611 11 10 10 9

6 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public budget for education per student (2014)

Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/edu

– All publications

– The complete PISA micro-level database

Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org

Twitter: SchleicherOECD

Wechat: AndreasSchleicher

Thank you

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

Sin

gapo

re

4F

inla

nd

3Japa

n

5E

sto

nia

7Ir

ela

nd

4

Ma

ca

o (

Ch

ina

) 1

2H

ong K

on

g (

Chin

a)

1

1G

erm

any 4

Slo

ven

ia 7

Kore

a

8

Sw

itzerl

and

4

Ru

ssia

5

Ne

therl

and

s

5

CA

BA

(A

rgentina

)

0P

ola

nd

9

De

nm

ark

11

Austr

alia

9

Ch

ine

se

Taip

ei 1

5B

elg

ium

7N

ew

Zeala

nd

10

Ca

nad

a

16

Spain

9N

orw

ay

9

Czech R

epu

blic

6

La

tvia

11

Sw

ede

n

6P

ort

ug

al 1

2F

rance

9

OE

CD

avera

ge

11

Icela

nd

7

Un

ite

d K

ing

dom

16

Cro

atia

9

Lithu

ania

10

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

16

Hu

nga

ry

10

Austr

ia

17

Ma

lta

2

Lu

xe

mbo

urg

12

Isra

el 6

Slo

vak R

epub

lic

11

Ita

ly

20

Gre

ece

9

Ro

man

ia

7

Mo

ldova

7B

-S-J

-G (

Chin

a)

3

6U

nite

d A

rab E

mira

tes

9C

hile

20

Bulg

aria

1

9A

lba

nia

16

Qata

r 7

Vie

t N

am

5

1M

onte

neg

ro 1

0Jord

an

1

4U

rug

uay

28

Trin

ida

d a

nd T

obag

o

24

Turk

ey 3

0G

eo

rgia

21

Co

lom

bia

25

Tha

iland

2

9F

YR

OM

5C

osta

Ric

a 3

7M

exic

o

38

Tun

isia

7

Peru

26

Bra

zil

2

9In

don

esia

32

Le

ban

on

34

Alg

eria

21

Kosovo

29

Do

min

ican

Rep

ublic

32

Level 6 Level 5Level 4 Level 3Level 2 Below Level 1bLevel 1b Level 1a

Student performance (PISA, Science, 15-year-olds, 2015)

%

Percentage of 15-year-olds not covered by the PISA sample

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

Sin

gapo

re

4F

inla

nd

3Japa

n

5E

sto

nia

7Ir

ela

nd

4

Ma

ca

o (

Ch

ina

) 1

2H

ong K

on

g (

Chin

a)

1

1G

erm

any 4

Slo

ven

ia 7

Kore

a

8

Sw

itzerl

and

4

Ru

ssia

5

Ne

therl

and

s

5

CA

BA

(A

rgentina

)

0P

ola

nd

9

De

nm

ark

11

Austr

alia

9

Ch

ine

se

Taip

ei 1

5B

elg

ium

7N

ew

Zeala

nd

10

Ca

nad

a

16

Spain

9N

orw

ay

9

Czech R

epu

blic

6

La

tvia

11

Sw

ede

n

6P

ort

ug

al 1

2F

rance

9

OE

CD

avera

ge

11

Icela

nd

7

Un

ite

d K

ing

dom

16

Cro

atia

9

Lithu

ania

10

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

16

Hu

nga

ry

10

Austr

ia

17

Ma

lta

2

Lu

xe

mbo

urg

12

Isra

el 6

Slo

vak R

epub

lic

11

Ita

ly

20

Gre

ece

9

Ro

man

ia

7

Mo

ldova

7B

-S-J

-G (

Chin

a)

3

6U

nite

d A

rab E

mira

tes

9C

hile

20

Bulg

aria

1

9A

lba

nia

16

Qata

r 7

Vie

t N

am

5

1M

onte

neg

ro 1

0Jord

an

1

4U

rug

uay

28

Trin

ida

d a

nd T

obag

o

24

Turk

ey 3

0G

eo

rgia

21

Co

lom

bia

25

Tha

iland

2

9F

YR

OM

5C

osta

Ric

a 3

7M

exic

o

38

Tun

isia

7

Peru

26

Bra

zil

2

9In

don

esia

32

Le

ban

on

34

Alg

eria

21

Kosovo

29

Do

min

ican

Rep

ublic

32

Level 6 Level 5Level 4 Level 3Level 2 Below Level 1bLevel 1b Level 1a

Student performance (PISA, Science, 15-year-olds, 2015)

%

Percentage of 15-year-olds not covered by the PISA sample

%

683% GDP

903 bn$551% GDP

12,448 bn$

153% GDP

27,929 bn$86% GDP

402 bn$

Long-term estimated economic gains from every 15-year-old achieving at least basic skills143% GDP

3,650 bn$