The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) examines what students know in reading, mathematics and science, and what they can do with what they know. It provides the most comprehensive and rigorous international assessment of student learning outcomes to date. Results from PISA indicate the quality and equity of learning outcomes attained around the world, and allow educators and policy makers to learn from the policies and practices applied in other countries. This is one of six volumes that present the results of the PISA 2018 survey, the seventh round of the triennial assessment. Volume II, Where All Students Can Succeed, examines gender differences in student performance, and the links between students’ socio-economic status and immigrant background, on the one hand, and student performance and well-being, on the other.
PISA 2018 Results (Volume II)
Abstract
Executive Summary
The principle that every person has a fair chance to improve his or her life, whatever his or her personal circumstances, lies at the heart of democratic political and economic institutions. Ensuring that all students have access to the best education opportunities is also a way of using resources effectively, and of improving education and social outcomes in general.
Equity in education is a central and long-standing focus of PISA and a major concern of countries around the world. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 advocate for “ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations, 2015).
Equity does not mean that all students have equal outcomes; rather it means that whatever variations there may be in education outcomes, they are not related to students’ background, including socio-economic status, gender or immigrant background.
PISA measures equity by whether education outcomes, such as access to schooling, student performance, students’ attitudes and beliefs, and students’ expectations for their future, are related to student’s personal background. The weaker the relationship, the more equitable the school system, as all students can flourish in such a system, regardless of their background.
Where all students can succeed: Main findings
Equity related to socio-economic status
In 11 countries and economies, including the OECD countries Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Japan, Korea, Norway and the United Kingdom, average performance was higher than the OECD average while the relationship between socio-economic status and reading performance was weaker than the OECD average.
In spite of socio-economic disadvantage, some students attain high levels of academic proficiency. On average across OECD countries, one in ten disadvantaged students was able to score in the top quarter of reading performance in their countries (known as academic resilience), indicating that disadvantage is not destiny. In Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hong Kong (China), Ireland, Macao (China) and the United Kingdom, all of which score above the OECD average, more than 13% of disadvantaged students were academically resilient.
Disadvantaged students are more or less likely to attend the same schools as high achievers, depending on the school system. In Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, Peru, Romania, the Slovak Republic, the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland, a typical disadvantaged student has less than a one-in-eight chance of attending the same school as high achievers (those who scored in the top quarter of reading performance in PISA. By contrast, in Baku (Azerbaijan), Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Kosovo, Macao (China), Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, disadvantaged students have at least a one-in-five chance of having high-achieving schoolmates.
On average across OECD countries, 40% of teachers in disadvantaged schools compared with 48% of teachers in advantaged schools had at least a master’s degree.
In 42 countries and economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were significantly more likely than those of advantaged schools to report that their school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered by a shortage of education staff. In 46 countries and economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were also more likely to report that a lack or inadequacy of educational material and physical infrastructure hinders instruction.
Many students, especially disadvantaged students, hold lower ambitions than would be expected given their academic achievement. On average across OECD countries, only seven in ten high-achieving disadvantaged students reported that they expect to complete tertiary education, while nine in ten high-achieving advantaged students reported so. In Austria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, the Republic of Moldova, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland, the difference between the two groups was larger than 25 percentage points.
On average across OECD countries, more than two in five disadvantaged students reported that they do not know how to find information about student financing (e.g. student loans or grants).
Equity related to gender
In all countries and economies that participated in PISA 2018, girls significantly outperformed boys in reading – by 30 score points, on average across OECD countries. The narrowest gender gaps (less than 20 score points) were observed in Argentina, Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and Peru; the widest (more than 50 score points) were observed in Finland, Jordan, the Republic of North Macedonia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
In Estonia, Ireland, Macao (China), Peru and Singapore, the gender gap in reading performance narrowed between 2009 and 2018; and both boys and girls scored higher in 2018 than their counterparts did in 2009.
Boys outperformed girls – by five score points – in mathematics, on average across OECD countries, but girls outperformed boys in science by two score points. While boys significantly outperformed girls in mathematics in 31 countries and economies, in 12 countries/economies the opposite pattern was observed. Only in Argentina, Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru did boys significantly outperform girls in science, while the opposite was true in 34 countries and economies.
In all countries and economies, girls reported much greater enjoyment of reading than boys. The largest gender gap in enjoyment of reading was observed in Germany, Hungary and Italy and the smallest in Indonesia and Korea. On average across OECD countries in 2018, both boys and girls reported significantly less enjoyment of reading than their counterparts did in 2009.
Only 1% of girls, on average across OECD countries, reported that they want to work in ICT-related occupations, compared with 8% of boys who so reported. In some countries, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia and Ukraine, more than 15% of boys reported that they expect to work in an ICT-related profession; but in no PISA-participating country or economy did more than 3% of girls report so.
Equity related to immigrant background
On average across OECD countries, 13% of students in 2018 had an immigrant background, up from 10% in 2009. In most countries, immigrant students tended to be socio-economically disadvantaged; in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden, at least two out of five immigrant students were disadvantaged.
Some 17% of immigrant students scored in the top quarter of reading performance in the country where they sat the PISA test, on average across OECD countries. In Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, more than 30% of immigrant students performed at that level.
In 21 out of the 43 countries and economies where a relatively large proportion of students had an immigrant background, immigrant students were more likely than their native-born peers to report a goal-oriented attitude.
Table II.1 [1/2]. Snapshot of socio-economic disparities in academic performance
1. ESCS refers to the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status.
2. A socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is a student in the top (bottom) quarter of ESCS in his or her own country/economy.
3. Academically resilient students are disadvantaged students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the mean reading score in PISA 2018.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables I.B1.10, II.B1.2.1, II.B1.2.3 and Table II.B1.3.1.
Table II.1 [2/2]. Snapshot of socio-economic disparities in academic performance
1. ESCS refers to the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status.
2. A socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is a student in the top (bottom) quarter of ESCS in his or her own country/economy.
3. Academically resilient students are disadvantaged students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the mean reading score in PISA 2018.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables I.B1.10, II.B1.2.1, II.B1.2.3 and Table II.B1.3.1.
Table II.2 [1/2]. Snapshot of expectations for the future, by gender and socio-economic status
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.6.7, II.B1.8.22 and II.B1.8.23.
Table II.2 [2/2]. Snapshot of expectations for the future, by gender and socio-economic status
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.6.7, II.B1.8.22 and II.B1.8.23.
Table II.3 [1/2]. Snapshot of immigrant students
1. Immigrant students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of immigrant students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.9.1 and II.B1.9.3.
Table II.3 [2/2]. Snapshot of immigrant students
1. Immigrant students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of immigrant students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.9.1 and II.B1.9.3.
Table II.4 [1/2]. Snapshot of enrolment and resources allocated to schools
1. The index of social inclusion is calculated as 100*(1-rho), where rho stands for the intra-class correlation of socio-economic status. The intra-class correlation, in turn, is the variation in student socio-economic status between schools, divided by the sum of the variation in student socio-economic status between schools and the variation in student socio-economic status within schools, and multiplied by 100.
2. The isolation index measures whether students of type (a) are more concentrated in some schools. The index is related to the likelihood of a representative type (a) student to be enrolled in schools that enrol students of another type. It ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 corresponding to no segregation and 1 to full segregation.
3. A socio-economically disadvantaged student is a student in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in his or her own country/economy.
4. High-achieving students are students who score amongst the top 25% of students, within their country or economy, on the PISA test.
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the index of social inclusion.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.4.6, II.B1.4.8, II.B1.5.4, II.B1.5.15 and II.B1.9.11.
Table II.4 [2/2]. Snapshot of enrolment and resources allocated to schools
1. The index of social inclusion is calculated as 100*(1-rho), where rho stands for the intra-class correlation of socio-economic status. The intra-class correlation, in turn, is the variation in student socio-economic status between schools, divided by the sum of the variation in student socio-economic status between schools and the variation in student socio-economic status within schools, and multiplied by 100.
2. The isolation index measures whether students of type (a) are more concentrated in some schools. The index is related to the likelihood of a representative type (a) student to be enrolled in schools that enrol students of another type. It ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 corresponding to no segregation and 1 to full segregation.
3. A socio-economically disadvantaged student is a student in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in his or her own country/economy.
4. High-achieving students are students who score amongst the top 25% of students, within their country or economy, on the PISA test.
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the index of social inclusion.
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.4.6, II.B1.4.8, II.B1.5.4, II.B1.5.15 and II.B1.9.11.
Table II.5 [1/2]. Snapshot of gender gaps in performance
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from Volume I).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the gender gap in reading performance.
Table II.5 [2/2]. Snapshot of gender gaps in performance
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from Volume I).
The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the gender gap in reading performance.
