This document contains data and statistics from PISA and other international education assessments related to equity in education outcomes and opportunities across OECD countries. It includes data on performance differences between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged students, access to resources like technology and qualified teachers in advantaged vs. disadvantaged schools, gender gaps in education and employment outcomes, private vs. public spending on education levels, and other metrics related to equity.
4. Can the closest school be always the best school?
Variation in reading performance between and within schools
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Finland
Iceland
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Norway
Ireland
Denmark
Canada
Portugal
New
Zealand
Estonia
Poland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Kosovo
Latvia
Albania
Mexico
Georgia
United
States
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Saudi
Arabia
Malaysia
Australia
Kazakhstan
Costa
Rica
Belarus
Philippines
Jordan
Montenegro
Morocco
Chile
Indonesia
Macao
(China)
Moldova
Thailand
Dominican
Republic
Ukraine
Greece
Colombia
France
Korea
Chinese
Taipei
Lithuania
Panama
Croatia
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Uruguay
Malta
Brazil
Hong
Kong
(China)
Peru
Brunei
Darussalam
North
Macedonia
Singapore
Luxembourg
Japan
Switzerland
Argentina
Slovenia
Romania
Serbia
Belgium
Italy
Qatar
Türkiye
Czech
Republic
Hungary
Slovak
Republic
Germany
Bulgaria
United
Arab
Emirates
Netherlands
Lebanon
Israel
Between-school variation Within-school variation
Percentage
of
the
total
variation
in
performance
across
OECD
countries
Performance variation between schools
Performance variation
within schools
5. Early childhood education is common above the age of 3, but at lower ages
its importance varies across countries
Enrolment rates of young children by type of programme and by age group (2020)
Figure B2.1.
0
20
40
60
80
100
France
Israel
Belgium
Spain
Denmark
Norway
Iceland
Sweden
Japan
Korea
Germany
Latvia
Hungary
Portugal
Slovenia
Italy
Netherlands
Estonia
Austria
Lithuania
Poland
EU22
average
Finland
Luxembourg
Czech
Republic
OECD
average
Slovak
Republic
Argentina
Chile
Colombia
Brazil
United
Kingdom
Mexico
United
States
India
Ireland
New
Zealand
Australia
Greece
Switzerland
Türkiye
Saudi
Arabia
South
Africa
Under 3 years - ISCED 0 Under 3 years - outside ISCED 0 3 to 5 - ISCED 0
6. Spending on ECEC varies strongly across countries
Expenditure on all children aged 3 to 5 enrolled in ECE and primary education (based on head counts)
Tables B2.1
and B2.3.
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Iceland
Norway
Chile
Israel
Sweden
Estonia
France
Latvia
Slovenia
Hungary
Poland
Lithuania
Mexico
Finland
Denmark
OECD
average
Germany
EU22
average
Italy
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
Slovak
Republic
Austria
Korea
Czech
Republic
Türkiye
Netherlands
Ireland
New
Zealand
Percentage of GDP spent on all children aged 3 to 5 enrolled in ECE and primary education
Percentage of 3 to 5 year old children enrolled in ECE and primary education
7. In some countries, the share of private expenditure on ECEC is
higher than the share of private expenditure on tertiary education
Relative proportions of private expenditure on early childhood and tertiary education (after public to private
transfers)
Tables B2.3.
and C3.2.
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
OECD Average
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Relative
proportion
of
private
expenditure
on
ECEC
Relative proportion of private expenditure on tertiary education
Share of private expenditure on ECEC is higher than on tertiary education
Share of private expenditure on tertiary education is higher than on ECEC
8. Recovery measures to alleviate the effects of the pandemic
covered many dimensions
Number of countries implementing recovery policies for students due to COVID-19 (2021/22 or 2022)
Figure 5.
0 5 10 15 20
Groupingstudentsaccordingtoproficiencyratherthanage
Strengthenedschoolnutritionservices
Cashtransferstoincreaseenrolmentamongstudentsfromdisadvantagedfamilies
Individualisedself-learningprogrammes
Automaticre-enrollmentofstudentsinschool
Communitymobilisationcampaignstobringstudentsbacktoschool
Adjustmentstothecurriculum
Tutoringprogrammesorfinancialsupportfortutoring
Earlywarningsystemstoidentifystudentsatriskofdroppingout
Referralsystemsforstudentsinneedofspecialisedservices
Programmesforthosedroppedoutofschool
Increasedinstructiontime
Strengthenedwater,sanitationandhygieneservices
Psychosocialandmentalhealthsupporttostudents
9. Increased use of digital tools is an important legacy of the pandemic
Share of countries planning to maintain or develop digitalisation measures implemented due to COVID-19
Figure 4.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Enhanced provision of hybrid learning
Enhanced provision of pre-service digital training to
teachers
Enhanced use of digitalised assessments/exams
Enhanced provision of distance learning
Enhanced provision of digital tools at the school
Enhanced provision of in-service digital training to
teachers
Enhanced provision of digital training for students
Yes Decisions made at local level of governance No
11. On average across OECD countries, adults with an upper secondary qualification earned about
21% more than those with below upper secondary education. The earnings advantage increased
to 90% for those with a tertiary degree
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
Finland
Ireland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
France
Belgium
New
Zealand
Denmark
Australia
Sweden
Poland
Netherlands
Norway
Canada
Luxembourg
Italy
OECD
average
Slovenia
Hungary
Greece
Portugal
Spain
Mexico
Slovak
Republic
Switzerland
Austria
Korea
Germany
Türkiye
Israel
United
States
United
Kingdom
Costa
Rica
Colombia
Chile
Czech
Republic
Iceland
Japan
Index
12 - Relative earnings of 25-64 year-olds with income from employment (full-time full-year workers),
2020 Below upper secondary=100
Upper secondary educational attainment Tertiary educational attainment
Source : EAG 2022. Table A4.1.
12. Gender employment gaps exist across all levels of education, but tended to be widest
among men and women with low levels of education
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Türkiye
Mexico
Colombia
Greece
Latvia
Costa
Rica
Czech
Republic
Italy
Poland
Ireland
Canada
Slovenia
OECD
average
United
States
Sweden
Germany
Hungary
Estonia
Chile
Australia
France
Switzerland
Lithuania
Denmark
New
Zealand
Belgium
Norway
United
Kingdom
Korea
Finland
Austria
Israel
Spain
Slovak
Republic
Netherlands
Portugal
Iceland
Luxembourg
Japan
11- Gender gaps (Men - Women) in employment rates of 25-34 year-olds, by educational attainment
(2021)
Below upper secondary Tertiary educational attainment
Percentage points
Source : EAG 2022. Table A3.2.
14. Women are still under-represented in upper secondary vocational
education and among new entrants in STEM at tertiary level
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Hungary
Iceland
Lithuania
Estonia
Greece
Poland
Germany
Italy
Norway
Sweden
Korea
Japan
Slovenia
Czech
Republic
Switzerland
Latvia
Slovak
Republic
OECD
average
Portugal
France
Denmark
Austria
Türkiye
Chile
Belgium
Luxembourg
Canada
Spain
Israel
Australia
Mexico
Netherlands
Costa
Rica
United
Kingdom
Finland
Colombia
New
Zealand
Ireland
United
States
%
18 - Share of women graduated from upper secondary vocational education and enrolled in STEM at
tertiary level of education (2020)
Share of women graduates from upper secondary vocational programmes
Share of women among new entrants in STEM at tertiary level
Source : EAG 2022. Tables B3.2 and B4.2.
16. One-third of countries spent at least twice as much on higher education
as on primary education
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
France
Czech
Republic
Germany
Netherlands
Korea
Canada
New
Zealand
Türkiye
Spain
Austria
Belgium
Latvia
Japan
Portugal
Australia
United
States
OECD
average
Ireland
Mexico
United
Kingdom
Norway
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Colombia
Sweden
Hungary
Slovak
Republic
Israel
Italy
Iceland
Chile
Poland
Slovenia
Finland
Greece
Denmark
Estonia
Costa
Rica
Switzerland
23 - Ratios of per student expenditure in primary, secondary and tertiary education (2019)
Primary education =1
Ratio of per student expenditure : Upper secondary education/ Primary education
Ratio of per student expenditure : Tertiary education/ Primary education
Ratio
Source : EAG 2022. Table C1.1.
18. Socio-economically disadvantaged schools were more likely than advantaged
schools to suffer shortages of education staff, on average across countries
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Japan
Costa
Rica
Belgium
Sweden
Portugal
Germany
Colombia
Estonia
Italy
Spain
Israel
Luxembourg
Türkiye
Korea
Ireland
New
Zealand
Czech
Republic
Hungary
Greece
Canada
United
States
OECD
average
Australia
Netherlands
Mexico
France
Slovenia
Finland
United
Kingdom
Latvia
Austria
Chile
Norway
Iceland
Switzerland
Slovak
Republic
Denmark
Lithuania
Poland
27 - Index of shortage of education staff, by schools’ socio-economic profile (2018)
Based on principals’ reports
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Index
Higher values in the index indicate that principals
reported more shortages of teaching and supporting
staff in school
Source : PISA 2018. Table V.B1.4.1.
19. On average across OECD countries, about one in five students from the quarter of
the most socio-economically disadvantaged schools did not have access to the
Internet and a computer that they could use for schoolwork at home
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mexico
Colombia
Türkiye
Costa
Rica
Japan
Chile
United
States
Greece
Hungary
Slovak
Republic
OECD
average
Ireland
Italy
Israel
France
Germany
New
Zealand
Korea
Spain
Belgium
Australia
Estonia
Luxembourg
Austria
Netherlands
Portugal
Canada
United
Kingdom
Czech
Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
Slovenia
Norway
Iceland
Poland
Denmark
30 - Percentage of students who reported having access to the Internet and a computer that they can use
for schoolwork at home, by school socio-economic profile (2018)
Based on students’ reports
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
%
Source : PISA 2018. Table B.2.3.
21. Students in socio-economically disadvantaged were more likely to report a weaker
sense of belonging at school than advantaged students in all OECD countries
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Slovak
Republic
Czech
Republic
Latvia
United
States
Canada
Australia
New
Zealand
Colombia
Poland
United
Kingdom
Lithuania
Slovenia
Estonia
Chile
Mexico
Ireland
Türkiye
France
Finland
Luxembourg
OECD
average
Hungary
Sweden
Greece
Iceland
Costa
Rica
Italy
Portugal
Japan
Belgium
Korea
Denmark
Netherlands
Norway
Germany
Switzerland
Austria
Spain
Israel
32 - Index of sense of belonging at school, by students’ socio-economic status (2018)
Based on students’ reports
Disadvantaged students Advantaged students
Index
Negative values in this index mean that the student
reported a lower sense of belonging at school than the
average student in OECD countries.
Source : PISA 2018. Table B1.9.4.
22. Parents discussing their child’s progress was more common in socio-economically advantaged
schools when the initiative was taken by parents, whereas it was more common in
disadvantaged schools when the initiative was taken by teachers, on average across countries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Japan
Hungary
Luxembourg
Belgium
Korea
Germany
Norway
Mexico
Ireland
Slovak
Republic
Switzerland
France
Czech
Republic
Australia
Netherlands
Iceland
Denmark
Costa
Rica
United
Kingdom
United
States
New
Zealand
OECD
average
Sweden
Israel
Estonia
Finland
Chile
Canada
Colombia
Poland
Italy
Slovenia
Spain
Türkiye
Lithuania
Latvia
Portugal
Greece
Austria
%
33 - Percentage of students’ parents who discussed their child’s progress with a teacher on their own
initiative, by students’ socio-economic status (2018)
Based on principals’ reports
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged students
Source : PISA 2018. Table B1.10.3.
23. Teachers working in schools with a high concentration of socio-economically disadvantaged
students were more likely to report a desire to change schools than those working in schools
with lower concentrations of these students
0
10
20
30
40
50
Austria
Denmark
Czech
Republic
Norway
Latvia
Belgium
Estonia
Slovak
Republic
Hungary
Iceland
Lithuania
Israel
United
States
Netherlands
Sweden
Slovenia
Italy
OECD
average
Spain
France
Colombia
Finland
New
Zealand
Australia
Chile
Portugal
Mexico
Japan
Korea
Türkiye
Canada
Costa
Rica
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Luxembourg
Poland
Switzerland
United
Kingdom
35 - Percentage of teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" with the statement "I would like to change to
another school if that were possible", by school characteristics (2018)
Based on principals' and teachers’ reports
Schools with less than 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes
Schools with more than 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes
%
Source : TALIS 2018. Table II.2.20.
25. Learning time ≠ learning outcomes
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Sweden
Estonia
New
Zealand
Japan
Czech
Republic
Macao
(China)
Netherlands
Ireland
France
United
Kingdom
Australia
Norway
Iceland
Canada
Belgium
Slovenia
Hong
Kong
(China)
Latvia
OECD
average
Lithuania
Uruguay
Luxembourg
Portugal
Slovak
Republic
Denmark
Poland
Hungary
Singapore
Austria
United
States
Chinese
Taipei
Israel
Croatia
Korea
Russia
Bulgaria
Greece
Italy
Türkiye
Chile
Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Costa
Rica
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
United
Arab
Emirates
Thailand
Dominican
Republic
Hours
Time in school
Learning out of school
Productivity
Note: Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire,
Productivity is measured by score points in reading per hour of total learning time
Score
points
in
reading
per
hour
of
learning
time
26. The digital world has become the real world
Number of hours per week 15-year-olds spent using the Internet (PISA 2018)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Denmark
Sweden
Chile
New
Zealand
Uruguay
United
States
Costa
Rica
Bulgaria
Australia
Serbia
Latvia
Thailand
Iceland
Luxembourg
Estonia
United
Kingdom
Hungary
Poland
Lithuania
Brazil
Finland
Croatia
Russia
Belgium
Singapore
Italy
Slovak
Republic
OECD
average
Spain
Austria
Malta
France
Israel
Ireland
Greece
Brunei
Darussalam
Czech
Republic
Switzerland
Macao
(China)
Chinese
Taipei
Slovenia
Hong
Kong
(China)
Georgia
Dominican
Republic
Mexico
Turkey
Kazakhstan
Panama
Albania
Japan
Korea
Morocco
Hours
Outside of school
At school
Türkiye
27. Digital navigation skills (PISA 2018)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Singapore
38
Korea
39
B-S-J-Z
(China)
39
Hong
Kong
(China)
34
Chinese
Taipei
46
Macao
(China)
39
United
Kingdom
22
Japan
34
United
States
30
Canada
26
New
Zealand
30
Netherlands
22
Australia
26
Finland
20
Ireland
20
Israel
17
UAE
25
Slovenia
20
Poland
29
Brunei
Darussalam
26
Malta
18
Croatia
19
Estonia
24
Austria
22
Malaysia
27
Belarus
27
OECD
average
24
Germany
22
Belgium
27
Lithuania
22
Czech
Republic
27
Overall
average
22
France
28
Latvia
18
Türkiye
36
Thailand
24
Qatar
23
Hungary
25
Portugal
26
Italy
25
Switzerland
23
Albania
11
Denmark
16
Luxembourg
28
Norway
16
Bulgaria
14
Indonesia
14
Spain¹
23
Chile
25
Sweden
18
Slovak
Republic
19
Philippines
19
Costa
Rica
21
Greece
18
Iceland
31
Serbia
18
Mexico
15
Brazil
15
Kazakhstan
20
Montenegro
14
Georgia
15
BiH
12
Panama
17
Uruguay
8
Peru
18
Colombia
22
Dominican
Republic
9
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
15
Kosovo
7
Morocco
6
Strictly focused navigation Actively explorative navigation No navigation Limited navigation
%
Percentage
of
students
who
self
activated
the
multiple-source
by
clicking
hyperlink
Highly effective navigation
Actively explorative navigation Limited navigation
No navigation
Figure 3.7
30. Growth mindset and student attitudes
Change in the following indices when students disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is
something about you that you can’t change very much“:
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Motivation to master
tasks
Self-efficacy Fear of failure Learning goals Value of school
Change
in
the
index
Fig III.14.5
All linear regression models account
for students' and schools'
socio-economic profile
31. Growth mindset matters more for some groups
Students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you
can’t change very much", by the following groups of students
Fig III.14.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Boys Girls Disadvantaged Advantaged Without an
immigrant
background
With an immigrant
background
Score-point
difference
Gender Socio-economic status Immigrant background
32. Index of sense of belonging
Fig III.9.2
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Spain
Austria
Albania
Norway
Switzerland
Germany
Korea
Denmark
Netherlands
Portugal
Iceland
Luxembourg
Hungary
Belgium
Croatia
Costa
Rica
Italy
Sweden
Saudi
Arabia
Serbia
Greece
Japan
Finland
Kosovo
OECD
average
Mexico
Romania
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Uruguay
Chinese
Taipei
Moldova
France
Belarus
United
Arab
Emirates
Chile
Montenegro
Georgia
Slovenia
Argentina
Peru
Lithuania
Estonia
Türkiye
Indonesia
Ireland
Singapore
Jordan
Canada
Colombia
Malaysia
Brazil
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Australia
United
Kingdom
Qatar
Panama
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
New
Zealand
Kazakhstan
Malta
United
States
Ukraine
Poland
Latvia
Philippines
Dominican
Republic
Czech
Republic
Slovak
Republic
Bulgaria
Morocco
Viet
Nam
Hong
Kong
(China)
Thailand
Macao
(China)
Brunei
Darussalam
Mean index
35. Teacher enthusiasm and reading performance
Fig III.5.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
It was clear to me that the teacher
liked teaching us
The enthusiasm of the teacher
inspired me
It was clear that the teacher likes to
deal with the topic of the lesson
The teacher showed enjoyment in
teaching
Score-point
difference
in
reading
compared to students who reported “strongly disagree”
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
36. Teacher behaviour hindering learning and reading performance
Fig III.7.4
R² = 0.09
R² = 0.10
R² = 0.12
R² = 0.18
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Average
reading
score
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the above behaviours hinder student learning "a lot"
Teachers not meeting indiviudal students‘ needs
Teacher absenteeism
Staff resisting change
Teachers not being well prepared for classes
Teachers being too strict with students
The R2 is indicated in bold when the association is significant
Based on country-level analysis
37. Students' life satisfaction and school climate
Change in the school-level index associated with a one-point change on the student life-satisfaction scale
Fig III.11.7
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Index of
disciplinary
climate
Index of exposure
to bullying
Index of sense of
belonging at
school
Index of teacher
support
Index of teacher
feedback
Index of student
co-operation
Index of student
competition
Change
in
students’
average
life
satisfaction
associated
with
a
one-unit
increase
in
the
school-level
indices
After accounting for student and school characteristics
Before accounting for student and school characteristics
Greater
Life
Satisfaction
38. Student co-operation and competition
Fig III.8.1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
Germany
Georgia
Austria
Croatia
Czech
Republic
Switzerland
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
Belgium
Indonesia
Iceland
Viet
Nam
Kosovo
Belarus
Norway
Estonia
North
Macedonia
Israel
Slovenia
Lithuania
Malaysia
Luxembourg
Hungary
Greece
Moldova
Albania
B-S-J-Z
(China)
OECD
average
Finland
Uruguay
Romania
Thailand
Mexico
Chinese
Taipei
Philippines
Spain
United
Arab
Emirates
Italy
Serbia
Macao
(China)
Slovak
Republic
Panama
Latvia
Chile
Sweden
Argentina
Montenegro
Poland
Lebanon
France
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Costa
Rica
Peru
Dominican
Republic
Qatar
Colombia
Portugal
Australia
Bulgaria
Hong
Kong
(China)
Türkiye
Brunei
Darussalam
Jordan
New
Zealand
Korea
Saudi
Arabia
Ireland
Singapore
Morocco
United
Kingdom
Brazil
Malta
United
States
Index of student co-operation Index of student competition
Mean index
Student competition is relatively higher than student co-operation
Student co-operation is relatively higher
than student competition
39. Student co-operation and competition, and reading performance
Fig III.8.3
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Students seem to
value co-
operation
It seems that
students are co-
operating with
each other
Students seem to
share the feeling
that co-operating
with each other
is important
Students feel
that they are
encouraged to
co-operate with
others
Students seem to
value
competition
It seems that
students are
competing with
each other
Students seem to
share the feeling
that competing
with each other
is important
Students feel
that they are
being compared
with others
Score-point
difference
in
reading
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
OECD average
Student co-operation Student competition
Score-point difference when students reported that the below statements are "very true" or "extremely true"
40. Internet use outside of school and students' feelings, OECD average
Fig III.12.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Happy Lively Proud Joyful Cheerful Scared Miserable Afraid Sad
Low Internet users Moderate Internet users Average Internet users High Internet users Heavy Internet users
Percentage
of
students
Positive feelings Negative feelings
Type of student according to the time they spend on the Internet outside of school:
41. Inclusion
The right to be equal
The right to be different
Social
background
Gender
Location
Immigration
42. Gender gap in career expectations amongst top performers
High performers in mathematics and/or science who aspire to science and engineering professionals
Fig III.8.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Argentina
Lebanon
Greece
Albania
Chile
Qatar
Türkiye
Sweden
Brazil
United
Kingdom
North
Macedonia
Australia
Brunei
Darussalam
Montenegro
Serbia
France
Denmark
Ireland
Hungary
Croatia
Belgium
United
Arab
Emirates
Israel
Estonia
Portugal
Malaysia
Malta
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Thailand
New
Zealand
OECD
average-36
Kazakhstan
Iceland
Canada
Lithuania
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Italy
Germany
Latvia
Singapore
Poland
Norway
Bulgaria
Romania
Switzerland
Jordan
Moldova
Belarus
Slovak
Republic
United
States
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Finland
Austria
Chinese
Taipei
Netherlands
Czech
Republic
Macao
(China)
Korea
Hong
Kong
(China)
Ukraine
Indonesia
Japan
Percentage
of
top
performers
who
expect
a
career
in
the
field
Expect to work as science or engineering professionals
Top performers among all students Girls Boys
43. Against the odds: Growth mindset and student resilience
Fig II.3.5
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Colombia
Mexico
Morocco
New
Zealand
Malta
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Uruguay
Kazakhstan
Brunei
Darussalam
Costa
Rica
Iceland
Kosovo
Lithuania
Thailand
Indonesia
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Australia
Ukraine
United
States
Sweden
Latvia
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Dominican
Republic
Denmark
Romania
Albania
Ireland
Moldova
Israel
Slovenia
Georgia
United
Arab
Emirates
Malaysia
Saudi
Arabia
Canada
Qatar
Belarus
Finland
United
Kingdom
OECD
average
Italy
Greece
Singapore
Serbia
Peru
France
Croatia
Hungary
Jordan
Netherlands
Türkiye
Slovak
Republic
Montenegro
Philippines
Portugal
Austria
Poland
Japan
Bulgaria
Luxembourg
Belgium
(Flemish)
Switzerland
Germany
Chinese
Taipei
Lebanon
Estonia
Korea
Macao
(China)
North
Macedonia
Czech
Republic
Panama
Hong
Kong
(China)
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Percentage-point
difference
Difference in the share of academically resilient students between those who exhibited a growth mindset and those who did not
45. Contribution of public and private schools to social segregation
across schools
Fig II.4.5
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Brunei
Darussalam
Malta
Canada
Finland
Croatia
North
Macedonia
Sweden
Chinese
Taipei
Korea
Denmark
New
Zealand
Qatar
Japan
Switzerland
Macao
(China)
Netherlands
Saudi
Arabia
Kazakhstan
Serbia
France
Greece
Spain
Italy
Luxembourg
Poland
Singapore
United
States
Estonia
United
Kingdom
OECD
average
Slovenia
Jordan
Portugal
Germany
Türkiye
Viet
Nam
Dominican
Republic
Malaysia
Hong
Kong
(China)
Philippines
Morocco
Georgia
Australia
Latvia
Lithuania
Czech
Republic
Thailand
Hungary
Uruguay
B-S-J-Z
(China)
United
Arab
Emirates
Lebanon
Costa
Rica
Panama
Albania
Argentina
Mexico
Indonesia
Brazil
Colombia
Chile
Slovak
Republic
Peru
Social segregation across private schools (weighted by the size of the private schooling sector)
Social segregation across public schools (weighted by the size of the public schooling sector)
Social segregation observed between public and private schools
No
social
diversity
index
Notes de l'éditeur
There’s a temptation to think this is all about money
But while money matters for countries that invest little, here on the left side, for OECD countries that relationship is rather tenuous.
Estonia, the OECD’s top performer, spends far less than most OECD countries.
And if you don’t feel quite ready for it, your students are.
Even before the pandemic, they spent an average of 35 hours per week on the internet, and in Denmark and Sweden it was close to 50 hours, a large chunk of which in school, you see that marked in yellow
So for your students, the digital world has become the real world.
But being a digital native doesn’t mean you are digitally skilled.
Here you see the share of 15-year-olds who are highly effective navigators on the internet or at least capable to actively explore information. As you see there is no country in the Western world with at least half of the student population good at navigating the digital world.
Some students have limited navigation skills but often a majority did not even demonstrate basic navigation strategies.
So technology seems way ahead of student capacities.