resource gaps between advantaged & disadvantaged schools...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Education Research Brief
Resource Gaps Between Advantaged & Disadvantaged Schools Among the Largest in the World
Trevor Cobbold
February 2017
Save Our Schools
http://www.saveourschools.com.au https://twitter.com/SOSAust [email protected]
2
Overview Disadvantaged students in Australia are being denied equal opportunities to learn because they have less access to qualified teachers and material resources than advantaged students. The gaps in access to education resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in Australia are among the largest in the world and the OECD. Data from PISA 2015 published in a supplementary report by the OECD show that disadvantaged schools in Australia experience more teacher shortages, higher teacher-student ratios and more shortages or inadequacy of material educational resources than advantaged schools [OECD 2016a]. Advantaged schools are much better equipped to provide opportunities to learn. The extent of the gaps is both startling and shocking:
Australia has the largest gap in teacher shortages between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in the OECD and the 4th largest of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015; only Buenos Aires, Peru and the United Arab Emirates have a larger gap of all the countries participating in PISA;
Inequity in the allocation of educational staff between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in Australia is the highest in the OECD according to the PISA measure of equity in the allocation of staff and the 3rd highest of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015. Inequity was greater in only Peru and Buenos Aires;
Australian is one of only seven OECD countries where disadvantaged schools have a higher student-teacher ratio than advantaged schools and the gap in Australia is the equal 2nd largest. Australia’s gap is the equal 12th highest of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015;
Australia has the 4th largest gap in the shortage or inadequacy of educational material and physical infrastructure between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in the OECD, and is only exceeded in Mexico, Turkey and Spain. The Australian gap is the 18th largest out of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015;
Inequity in the allocation of material resources in Australia is the 5th highest in the OECD according to the PISA measure of equity in resource allocation and the 15th highest of the 70 participating countries/regions.
Private schools are better equipped in terms of human and material resources than public schools. Public schools have greater shortages in teaching and material resources and higher student-teacher ratios than private schools. Provincial and rural schools also have greater teaching shortages than city schools.
Australia has the largest gap in teacher shortages between town and city schools in the OECD and one of the largest of all countries/regions participating in PISA;
The gap in the shortage of teachers between rural and city schools in Australia is the 5th largest in the OECD.
A feature of the latest PISA results is continuing high inequity in education outcomes in Australia. High proportions of disadvantaged students don’t achieve international minimum standards in reading, mathematics and science and they are three or more years of learning behind advantaged students. High proportions of students in provincial and remote area schools are also below minimum standards and are 2⅟2-3 years behind advantaged students.1
1 The terminology used to classify schools by geographic location is different between the OECD report and the Australian national report on the PISA results. The OECD report classifies schools as being city, town or rural
3
These inequities are not new. They are a longstanding feature of Australia’s PISA, and of other national and international test results. In fact, the percentage of disadvantaged students and students in provincial and remote area schools below international minimum standards has increased significantly in the last 10 years. The OECD report shows that the distribution of human and material resources between disadvantaged and advantaged schools matters for student achievement in education systems. It found that: “In countries and economies where more resources are allocated to disadvantaged schools than advantaged schools, overall student performance in science is somewhat higher” [OECD 2016a: 189]. Australia must provide more resources for disadvantaged schools if the large achievement gaps are to be reduced. As the OECD report states:
Achieving equity in education means ensuring that students’ socio-economic status has little to do with learning outcomes. Learning should not be hindered by whether a child comes from a poor family, has an immigrant background, is raised by a single parent or has limited resources at home, such as no computer or no quiet room for studying. Successful education systems understand this and have found ways to allocate resources so as to level the playing field for students who lack the material and human resources that students in advantaged families enjoy. When more students learn, the whole system benefits. This is an important message revealed by PISA results: in countries and economies where more resources are allocated to disadvantaged schools, overall student performance in science is somewhat higher. [OECD 2016a: 233]
A similar report on PISA 2012 results showed that the extent and quality of human and material resources in secondary schools influences student achievement. It found that: “High-performing countries tend to allocate resources more equitably across socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools” [OECD 2013: 17]. Australia is clearly still failing in this. Many academic studies show that better targeting of teaching and material resources to disadvantaged schools would improve the results of disadvantaged students. Improving the results of low SES students to match the current Australian averages would lift Australia into the top 10 countries in the world in reading and science and substantially improve Australia’s position in mathematics. The Gonski funding model was designed to redress the inequity in resources between disadvantaged and advantaged schools. Its sabotage by the Federal Coalition will mean continuing disadvantage and social inequity in education in Australia. The forthcoming meeting of the national education ministers’ council must ensure future funding arrangements that support increased resources for disadvantaged schools.
High inequity in student achievement The national PISA 2015 report shows that very high proportions of low socio-economic status (SES), Indigenous, provincial and remote area 15 year-old students are not achieving international minimum standards in reading, mathematics and science. About one-third of low SES students are below the reading, mathematics and science standards [see Chart 1 below]. Almost half of all Indigenous students are below the mathematics standard while 40
schools and the Australian report classifies schools as metropolitan, provincial and remote. The classifications seem to be similar.
4
per cent are below the reading standard and 42 per cent are below the science standard. About 30 per of remote area students and about 25 per cent of provincial students and students from a language background other than English (LBOTE) are below the standards. In contrast, only seven to nine per cent of high SES students are below the standards. Mean scores in reading, mathematics and science results for low SES, Indigenous, remote area students lag those of high SES students by about three or more years [Chart 2]. The achievement gap between high and low SES students in reading, mathematics and science is equivalent to about three years of learning. The gap between high SES and Indigenous students is even larger, being equivalent to about four years of learning. The high SES/remote area student gap is about three years of learning, the high SES/provincial gap is 2⅟2-3 years and that for high SES/LBOTE students is about 2-2⅟2 years.
Shortage of education staff Shortage of qualified teachers restricts effective learning. One-fifth of Australian students attend schools whose principals reported in PISA 2015 that a shortage of teaching staff hinders learning to some extent or a lot [OECD 2016a: Table II.6.14]. However, advantaged schools in Australia face fewer staff shortages than many other schools in Australia. The gaps in the shortage of teachers between disadvantaged and advantaged schools, town and city schools and rural and city schools are the largest in the OECD and among the largest of all countries/cities participating in PISA 2015.2 Australia has the largest gap in the shortage of teachers between disadvantaged and advantaged schools in the OECD and one of the largest of all 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015. The gap is very large compared to the average across the OECD and is much larger than in high performing countries such as Singapore, Japan, Estonia, Taiwan, Finland, Vietnam and Korea [Chart 3]. Only Buenos Aires, Peru and the United Arab Emirates have a larger gap than Australia. The OECD PISA 2015 report also constructed a measure of equity in the allocation of education staff amongst disadvantaged and advantaged schools based on principals’ concerns about the lack or inadequacy of human resources at school. This shows that inequity in the allocation of education staff in Australia is the highest in the OECD and much higher than in other high performing countries [Chart 4]. Many high performing countries such as Estonia, Finland, Singapore, Japan and Canada have very little inequity in the allocation of education staff. Inequity in Australia is the 3rd highest of 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015. Inequity was greater in only Peru and Buenos Aires. Australia also has the largest gap in the shortage of teachers between town and city schools in the OECD and one of the largest of all countries/regions participating in PISA.3 The shortage gap is very large compared to the average for the OECD [Chart 5]. Several high performing countries such as Korea, Estonia, Germany and Slovenia have a higher shortage of teachers in city schools rather than schools in towns. Only China, Cyprus, Dominican Republic and Jordan have a larger shortage gap between town and city schools than Australia. The gap in the shortage of teachers between rural and city schools in Australia is also one of the largest in the OECD [Chart 6]. Only the Slovak Republic, Chile, Canada and New Zealand have a larger gap. The Australian gap is the 12th largest of all countries/regions participating in PISA 2015.
2 The OECD constructed an index of shortages in education staff from principals’ responses to the PISA 2015 questionnaire. Differences in index scores reflect differences in the shortage of staff in schools. 3 A town is defined as having a population of 3,000 to 100,000 and a city is defined has having a population of over 100,000.
5
Public schools also have a greater shortage of teachers than private schools and the gap is larger than the average in OECD countries [Chart 7]. The gap is larger than in most high performing countries.
Student-teacher ratios Australian is one of only seven of 35 OECD countries where disadvantaged schools have a higher student-teacher ratio than advantaged schools and the gap in favour of advantaged schools in Australia is the equal 2nd largest in the OECD [Chart 8]. In Australia, the average student-teacher ratio in disadvantaged secondary schools is 13.1 compared to 12.4 in advantaged schools [OECD 2016, Table II.6.29]. In contrast, the average student-teacher ratio in disadvantaged secondary schools across the OECD is 12.1 compared to 13.5 for advantaged schools. Australia is one of only 18 countries/regions out of 70 participating in PISA 2015 where disadvantaged schools have a higher student-teacher ratio than advantaged schools and it is the equal 12th highest. In high performing countries, student-teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools are generally lower than in advantaged schools. Canada, Estonia, Finland, Japan and Korea all have lower student-teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools than in advantaged schools. For example, in Estonia the average ratio for disadvantaged schools is 8.8 and 13.6 in advantaged schools. In Japan, the respective ratios are 10.0 and 12.5 while in Finland they are 9.6 and 10.7. Student-teacher ratios in town and city schools are also higher than in advantaged schools. The ratio for town schools is 13.0 and 13.2 in city schools [Chart 9]. The ratio for rural schools is 12.1 which is similar to that in advantaged schools [Chart 10]. The student-teacher ratio in public schools is also higher than in private schools – 13.5 compared to 12.5 [Chart 11]. These ratios are similar to the OECD averages for public and private schools. The PISA 2015 study found only a weak relationship between student-teacher ratios and student achievement across OECD countries and in Australia. In Australia, this may be due to the fact that the variation in student-teacher ratios between schools is relatively small. Studies show that lower student-teacher ratios increase student achievement in disadvantaged schools [for example, Jackson et.al. 2016, Mathis 2016, Schanzenbach 2014]. Lower student-teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools allow for lower class sizes or allow teachers more time to prepare for lessons and take on other responsibilities such as mentoring students.
Shortage of educational material resources The OECD report found that students score lower in schools whose principals reported that the capacity to provide learning opportunities is hindered to a greater extent by a shortage or inadequacy of physical infrastructure and educational material resources, such as textbooks, science laboratories, information technology and libraries [OECD 2016a: 187].4 In Australia, only about 10 per cent of students are in schools where principals reported that a lack or inadequacy of educational materials hinders learning to some extent or a lot [OECD 2016: Table II.6.1]. However, 25 per cent of students are in schools where principals reported that inadequacy of inadequacy of physical infrastructure, such as school buildings, heating and cooling systems and teaching space hinder learning to some extent or a lot.
4 The OECD constructed an index of shortage in educational material resources from principals’ responses to the PISA 2015 questionnaire about the extent to which shortage or inadequacy in physical infrastructure and educational materials hinder learning. Differences in index scores reflect differences in the shortage of material resources in schools.
6
Australia is one of many countries where student learning in socio-economically disadvantaged schools is hindered by a lack or inadequacy of educational material and physical infrastructure to a greater extent than in advantaged schools. However, the gap in Australia is the 4th largest in the OECD, only exceeded in Mexico, Turkey and Spain [Chart 12]. It is much larger than in high performing countries such as Singapore, Canada, Estonia, Finland and Korea. The Australian gap is the 18th largest out of the 70 countries/regions participating in PISA 2015 The OECD PISA 2015 report also constructed a measure of equity in the allocation of education resources amongst disadvantaged and advantaged schools based on principals’ concerns about the lack or inadequacy of educational resources at school. This shows that inequity in the allocation of educational resources in Australia is the 5th highest in the OECD and much higher than in other high performing countries [Chart 13]. It is the 15th highest of the 70 participating countries/regions. Public schools also face much greater shortages or inadequacy in physical infrastructure and educational materials than private schools and the gap is similar to that between disadvantaged and advantaged schools [Chart 14]. The gap is much greater than in many other high performing countries such as Canada, Estonia, Japan, Korea and Singapore. Rural and town schools also face greater shortages or inadequacy of educational resources than city schools, but the gaps are less than between disadvantaged and advantaged schools [Charts 15 &16]. However, the gaps between rural and town schools and city schools are larger than the OECD averages.
Conclusion Achievement gaps are inextricably linked to gaps in the opportunity to learn. The opportunity to learn is affected by factors outside and within schools. Disadvantage is constantly reproduced in society through poverty, low incomes, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, poor health and other factors. Schools are in a constant battle against the reproduction of inequality and poverty in society. Their efforts must be supported by economic and social policies to reduce growing inequality and increasing poverty. But, it is critical that they are also provided with adequate human and material resources to ensure that disadvantaged students achieve at the levels of advantaged students. The allocation of teaching and educational material resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools matters. The OECD analysis of the PISA 2015 science results found that 31 per cent of the variation in science performance is explained by the degree of equity in the allocation of educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools [OECD 2016a: 189]. Evidence from another OECD report last year indicated that low-performing students appear to benefit the most when more resources are allocated to disadvantaged schools than advantaged schools (OECD 2016b). As the eminent US educationalist Linda Darling-Hammond concluded in a review of inequality and school resources:
Clearly, money well spent does make a difference. Equalizing access to resources creates the possibility that all students will receive what is their birthright: a genuine opportunity to learn. [Darling-Hammond 2013: 97]
Improving the results of disadvantaged students would not only increase their life chances, but would significantly lift Australia’s overall education performance. If the average results for students in the lowest SES quartile were lifted to the current national average scores recorded in PISA 2015, Australia would move into the top 10 countries in reading and science and significantly improve its position in mathematics.
7
In 2015, low SES students were well over one year of learning behind the Australian average in reading, mathematics and science (41 points behind in reading, 39 points behind in mathematics and 42 points behind in science). If the results of low SES students were lifted to the current Australian average, Australia would move from 16th to 9th in reading out of 70 countries and be statistically equivalent with Estonia, Japan and Korea. In science, Australia would move from 14th to 9th and be statistically similar to Canada, Hong Kong and Vietnam. In mathematics, Australia would move from 25th to about 15th and be statistically similar to Finland, Germany and Denmark. Lifting the results of low SES and other disadvantaged students requires better targeting of teaching and material resources to disadvantaged schools as many studies show. However, Governments in Australia and the federal and state/territory level have all failed to provide disadvantaged schools with the human and material resources necessary to reduce the large achievement gaps. The Gonski funding model was designed to redress the inequity in resources between disadvantaged and advantaged schools. Its sabotage by the Federal Coalition will mean continuing disadvantage and social inequity in education in Australia. It will also mean lower productivity and economic growth, and higher government expenditure on health, welfare and crime. The forthcoming meeting of the national education ministers’ council must ensure future funding arrangements that support increased resources for disadvantaged schools.
8
Charts on Disadvantage & Educational Resources
Source: Thomson et.al. 2016, Figures 5.2, 5.4 & 5.6.
Source: Derived from Thomson et.al. 2016, Figures 9.2, 10.2, 11.2 & 13.2. Note: One year of learning is equivalent to about 30 points on the PISA scale.
30
40
28
2426
7
35
49
33
2927
9
29
42
28
23
27
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Low SES Indigenous Remote Provincial LBOTE High SES
Chart 1: Percentage of Low Performing Students (Below PISA Level 2), Australia, 2015
Reading Mathematics Science
89
116
86
7164
86
114
81
68
54
91
122
86
68 71
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Low SES Indigenous Remote Area Provincial LBOTE
Chart 2: Achievement Gaps Between High SES & Other Student Groups, Australia, 2015
Reading Mathematics Science
9
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15. Note: Singapore is highlighted in this and the following charts because it is the top performing country in PISA 2015.
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.16 Note: The index of equity in the allocation of education staff is the percentage of the variation in the index of shortage of educational staff explained by the school PISA index of economic, social and cultural status of the school multiplied by a negative or positive sign, depending on the sign of the relationship.
1.06
0.34
0.16
-0.24-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Au
stra
liaSp
ain
USA
Turk
ey
Mex
ico
Swe
de
nN
ew
Ze
alan
dIs
rael
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
De
nm
ark
Ch
ileN
orw
ayLu
xem
bo
urg
Hu
nga
rySl
ova
k R
ep
ub
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Can
ada
UK
Po
rtu
gal
OEC
DSw
itze
rlan
dG
erm
any
Ital
yIr
elan
dB
elg
ium
Gre
ece
Sin
gap
ore
Jap
anSl
ove
nia
Fin
lan
dP
ola
nd
Ice
lan
dLa
tvia
Fran
ceEs
ton
iaA
ust
ria
Ko
rea
Chart 3: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Disadvantaged & Advantaged Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
-17.4
-3.8
-0.3
0.6
-20.0
-18.0
-16.0
-14.0
-12.0
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
Au
stra
liaSp
ain
Turk
ey
Mex
ico
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Ch
ileSw
ed
en
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Luxe
mb
ou
rgU
SAP
ort
uga
lH
un
gary
OEC
DD
en
mar
kN
orw
ayG
ree
ceG
erm
any
Isra
el UK
Slo
ven
iaIr
elan
dSw
itze
rlan
dC
anad
aB
elg
ium
Jap
anSl
ova
k R
ep
ub
Fin
lan
dN
eth
erl
and
sIt
aly
Ice
lan
dSi
nga
po
reP
ola
nd
Latv
iaFr
ance
Esto
nia
Au
stri
aK
ore
a
Chart 4: Equity in the Allocation of Education Staff Between Advantaged and Disadvantaged Schools, OECD, PISA 2015 (%)
10
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15
0.42
0.06
-0.24-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Au
stra
lia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Turk
ey
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Mex
ico
Spai
n
Po
rtu
gal
No
rway
Ch
ile
Irel
and
Isra
el
Fin
lan
d
Ice
lan
d
Swe
de
n
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
Fran
ce
De
nm
ark
OEC
D
Ital
y
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Jap
an
Hu
nga
ry
Can
ada
Ko
rea
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Latv
ia
Esto
nia
Ge
rman
y
Swit
zerl
and
Slo
ven
ia
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Po
lan
d
UK
Gre
ece
USA
Chart 5: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Town & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
0.65
0.50
0.05
-0.79
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
Ch
ile
Can
ada
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Au
stra
lia
Isra
el
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Swe
de
n
No
rway
Po
rtu
gal
Latv
ia
Turk
ey
Au
stri
a
Esto
nia
Irel
and
Swit
zerl
and
De
nm
ark
OEC
D
Mex
ico
Po
lan
d
Fin
lan
d
Hu
nga
ry
USA
Ice
lan
d
UK
Ital
y
Spai
n
Slo
ven
ia
Gre
ece
Fran
ce
Ge
rman
y
Be
lgiu
m
Chart 6: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Rural & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
11
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.15
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29
1.85
0.690.57
0.11
-0.28-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Gre
ece
Po
rtu
gal
Ital
y
Turk
ey
Mex
ico
Fin
lan
d
UK
Ch
ile
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Spai
n
Ge
rman
y
USA
Au
stra
lia
De
nm
ark
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Hu
nga
ry
No
rway
Can
ada
OEC
D
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Swe
de
n
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
Latv
ia
Swit
zerl
and
Sin
gap
ore
Au
stri
a
Ko
rea
Slo
ven
ia
Po
lan
d
Irel
and
Jap
an
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Esto
nia
Fran
ce
Chart 7: Difference in Index of Shortage of Education Staff Between Public & Private Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
3.5
0.7
-0.1
-1.4
-5.0-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Au
stri
aA
ust
ralia
Swit
zerl
and
Turk
ey
Isra
elC
zech
Re
pu
bIc
ela
nd
USA
Sin
gap
ore
Ge
rman
yC
hile
Slo
vak
Re
pu
bP
ola
nd
Luxe
mb
ou
rgSl
ove
nia
Fin
lan
dG
ree
ceP
ort
uga
lD
en
mar
kN
ew
Ze
alan
dM
exic
oO
ECD
UK
Hu
nga
ryFr
ance
No
rway
Irel
and
Can
ada
Swe
de
nJa
pan
Ko
rea
Latv
iaSp
ain
Be
lgiu
mEs
ton
iaIt
aly
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Chart 8: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Disadvantaged & Advantaged Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
12
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29.
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29.
3.2
-0.2-0.6
-2.8
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Isra
el
Be
lgiu
m UK
Ice
lan
d
Mex
ico
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Po
lan
d
Fin
lan
d
Fran
ce
Swit
zerl
and
Ge
rman
y
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
Au
stra
lia
Turk
ey
Slo
ven
ia
De
nm
ark
OEC
D
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ital
y
Can
ada
No
rway
Hu
nga
ry
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Gre
ece
Po
rtu
gal
Jap
an
Esto
nia
Au
stri
a
USA
Latv
ia
Swe
de
n
Irel
and
Ko
rea
Ch
ile
Spai
n
Chart 9: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Town & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
2.6
-1.1
-2.3
-10.0
-12.0
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
Fran
ce
Au
stri
a
Isra
el
Turk
ey
Be
lgiu
m
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
UK
Po
lan
d
Hu
nga
ry
Ital
y
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
Au
stra
lia
Swe
de
n
Ice
lan
d
Ge
rman
y
Slo
ven
ia
Swit
zerl
and
Fin
lan
d
OEC
D
No
rway
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Irel
and
Po
rtu
gal
De
nm
ark
Can
ada
Gre
ece
Latv
ia
Esto
nia
USA
Mex
ico
Spai
n
Ch
ile
Chart 10: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Rural & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
13
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.29.
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.
8.2
1.00.7 0.4
-4.5-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Mex
ico
UK
USA
Gre
ece
Swit
zerl
and
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Po
lan
dLa
tvia
Turk
ey
Slo
vak
Re
pu
bC
zech
Re
pu
bA
ust
ria
De
nm
ark
Esto
nia
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Au
stra
liaO
ECD
No
rway
Sin
gap
ore
Be
lgiu
mIc
ela
nd
Isra
elFi
nla
nd
Ko
rea
Jap
anH
un
gary
Ital
yG
erm
any
Luxe
mb
ou
rgSw
ed
en
Can
ada
Slo
ven
iaP
ort
uga
lFr
ance
Irel
and
Ch
ileSp
ain
Chart 11: Difference in Student-Teacher Ratios Between Public & Private Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
1.7
0.6
0.3 0.2
-0.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Mex
ico
Turk
ey
Spai
nA
ust
ralia
Jap
anC
hile
Luxe
mb
ou
rgP
ort
uga
lIt
aly
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Irel
and
No
rway
Isra
elD
en
mar
kSw
ed
en
USA
Be
lgiu
mSl
ove
nia
OEC
DH
un
gary
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Sin
gap
ore
Gre
ece
Can
ada
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Ko
rea
Fin
lan
dSw
itze
rlan
dG
erm
any
Fran
ceA
ust
ria
Po
lan
dSl
ova
k R
ep
ub
Esto
nia
Ice
lan
dU
KLa
tvia
Chart 12: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Advantaged & Disadvantaged Schools, OECD,
PISA 2015
14
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.3.
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.
-26.6
-7.8
-3.3-1.4
4.1
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Mex
ico
Ch
ileTu
rke
ySp
ain
Au
stra
liaJa
pan
Po
rtu
gal
Luxe
mb
ou
rgN
ew
Ze
alan
dSl
ove
nia
OEC
DB
elg
ium
No
rway
Irel
and
Swe
de
nG
ree
ceIt
aly
Sin
gap
ore
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Hu
nga
ryU
SAIs
rael
Can
ada
De
nm
ark
Ko
rea
Fran
ceG
erm
any
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Swit
zerl
and
Au
stri
aFi
nla
nd
Po
lan
dSl
ova
k R
ep
ub
UK
Esto
nia
Ice
lan
dLa
tvia
Chart 13: Equity in the Allocation of Educational Resources, OECD, PISA 2015 (%)
1.4
0.6
0.4
-0.2-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Gre
ece
Turk
ey
Mex
ico
Ital
y
Po
rtu
gal
Spai
n
Fin
lan
d
UK
Hu
nga
ry
Ch
ile
Slo
ven
ia
Au
stra
lia
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Ge
rman
y
Swe
de
n
OEC
D
Can
ada
Jap
an
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Esto
nia
Latv
ia
Ko
rea
De
nm
ark
No
rway
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Irel
and
Po
lan
d
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Swit
zerl
and
Au
stri
a
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
USA
Fran
ce
Sin
gap
ore
Chart 14: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Public & Private Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
15
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.
Source: OECD 2016a, Table II.6.2.
1.19
0.25
0.11
-0.57-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Mex
ico
Ch
ile
Irel
and
Turk
ey
UK
Gre
ece
Fran
ce
Spai
n
Po
rtu
gal
Au
stri
a
No
rway
Au
stra
lia
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Swe
de
n
Can
ada
OEC
D
Esto
nia
Ital
y
Isra
el
Swit
zerl
and
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
Fin
lan
d
Po
lan
d
Ice
lan
d
Slo
ven
ia
Ge
rman
y
Latv
ia
Be
lgiu
m
USA
De
nm
ark
Hu
nga
ry
Chart 15: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Rural & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
0.49
0.18
0.03
-0.34-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Mex
ico
No
rway
Irel
and
UK
Ital
y
Esto
nia
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
Turk
ey
Au
stra
lia
Spai
n
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Ch
ile
Swe
de
n
Isra
el
Fran
ce
Po
rtu
gal
OEC
D
Fin
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Slo
ven
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Ko
rea
Can
ada
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
De
nm
ark
Ice
lan
d
Swit
zerl
and
Ne
the
rlan
ds
USA
Be
lgiu
m
Slo
vak
Re
pu
b
Latv
ia
Ge
rman
y
Po
lan
d
Chart 16: Difference in Index of Shortage of Educational Resources Between Town & City Schools, OECD, PISA 2015
16
References Darling-Hammond, Linda 2013, Inequality and school resources. In Carter, Prudence & Welner, Kevin G. (eds), Closing the Opportunity Gap, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 77-97. Jackson, C. Kirabo; Rucker, Johnson C. & Persico, Claudia 2016, The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (1): 157-218. http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/1/157 Mathis, William J. 2016, The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction, National Education Policy Centre, Boulder, CO. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/research-based-options OECD 2013, PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV), PISA , OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en OECD 2016a, PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en OECD 2016b, Low-Performing Students: Why They Fall Behind and How To Help Them Succeed, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250246-en Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore 2014. Does Class Size Matter? National Education Policy Centre, Boulder, CO. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/does-class-size-matter Thomson, Sue; De Bortoli, Lisa & Underwood, Catherine 2016, PISA 2015: A first look at Australia’s results, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell. https://www.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/reports