In times of growing economic inequality, improving equity in education becomes more urgent. While some countries and economies that participate in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) have managed to build education systems where socio-economic status makes less of a difference to students’ learning and well-being, every country can do more.
Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility shows that high performance and more positive attitudes towards schooling among disadvantaged 15-year-old students are strong predictors of success in higher education and work later on. The report examines how equity in education has evolved over several cycles of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). It identifies the policies and practices that can help disadvantaged students succeed academically and feel more engaged at school.
Using longitudinal data from five countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, and the United States), the report also describes the links between a student’s performance near the end of compulsory education and upward social mobility – i.e. attaining a higher level of education or working in a higher-status job than one’s parents.
Equity in education - Breaking down barriers to social mobility
1. Equity in Education: Breaking
down Barriers to Social Mobility
Andreas Schleicher
2. Context
• Higher income inequality and lower social mobility
tend to go together
– Greater income inequality limits education opportunities for talented yet
underprivileged individuals
– In societies with higher income inequality, disadvantaged youth tend to perceive
smaller-than-actual returns to investing in further education
– The actual increase in earnings associated with a university degree tends to be
smaller for disadvantaged youth
• Education can promote social mobility –
but this varies across countries
– High educational performance among disadvantaged youths is a strong predictor
for their success in further education and work
– In countries where educational success remains strongly linked to social
background rather than student talent and attitudes, education may not promote
greater social mobility but reproduce existing inequalities
3. Concepts
Equality Equity Justice
The assumption is that
everyone benefits from
the same supports.
This is equal treatment.
Everyone gets the supports
they need
All 3 can see the game
without supports of
accommodations because
the cause(s) of the inequity
was addressed.
4. Mean performance in science, by international deciles of the
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
VietNam76
Macao(China)22
B-S-J-G(China)52
Japan8
Singapore11
HongKong(China)26
ChineseTaipei12
Estonia5
Finland2
Korea6
Portugal28
Germany7
Canada2
Poland16
Spain31
UnitedKingdom5
Latvia25
Slovenia5
Switzerland8
Australia4
NewZealand5
Ireland5
CzechRepublic9
Denmark3
Hungary16
OECDaverage12
Netherlands4
France9
Italy15
Belgium7
Norway1
Sweden3
Austria5
Russia5
UnitedStates11
Croatia10
Lithuania12
CABA(Argentina)18
SlovakRepublic8
Chile27
Luxembourg14
Iceland1
Malta13
Uruguay39
Greece13
Romania20
Israel6
Turkey59
Indonesia74
Moldova28
Mexico53
Thailand55
Bulgaria13
Colombia43
CostaRica38
TrinidadandTobago14
Peru50
Jordan21
Montenegro11
UnitedArabEmirates3
Brazil43
Georgia19
Tunisia39
Lebanon27
FYROM13
Algeria52
Qatar3
Kosovo10
DominicanRepublic40
Scorepoints
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Figure I.6.7
% of students
in the bottom
international
deciles of
ESCS
OECD median student
5. Equity in education outcomes Figure 2.1
Cognitive
achievement
Socio-emotional
well-being
Educational
attainment
Student
socio-economic
background
Completion of upper secondary and
tertiary education
Years of schooling
Career expectations
Science self-efficacy
Sense of belonging at school
Performance in PISA
Performance in childhood, adolescence
and adulthood
6. Equity in education outcomes Figure 2.1
Cognitive
achievement
Socio-emotional
well-being
Educational
attainment
Student
socio-economic
background
Completion of upper secondary and
tertiary education
Years of schooling
Career expectations
Science self-efficacy
Sense of belonging at school
Performance in PISA
Performance in childhood, adolescence
and adulthood
7. Overall educational attainment is rising
But inequity in completion of tertiary education
persists over time within countries
8. Wealthier countries have benefited more from the expansion of
access to education over the past century
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1901-1905
1906-1910
1911-1915
1916-1920
1921-1925
1926-1930
1931-1935
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
1971-1975
1976-1980
1981-1985
Years of schooling
Year of birth
High-income-economies
Upper-middle-income economies
Lower-middle-income economies
Low-income economies
Figure 2.10
9. Expansion in education does not automatically result in greater equity
Expansion opens opportunities for education to more students, who those students are determines whether expansion improves equity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1901-1905
1906-1910
1911-1915
1916-1920
1921-1925
1926-1930
1931-1935
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
1971-1975
1976-1980
1981-1985
Years of schooling
Year of birth
High-income-economies
Upper-middle-income economies
Lower-middle-income economies
Low-income economies
Equity has improved Equity has declined
10. Upward educational mobility varies across countries Figure 2.12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cyprus
RussianFederation
Singapore
Korea
Finland
Greece
Belgium
France
Ireland
Poland
Lithuania
Canada
Netherlands
Estonia
Sweden
Japan
PIAACaverage
Australia
Israel
NewZealand
Spain
NorthernIreland
England
Slovenia
Chile
Denmark
Norway
Italy
SlovakRepublic
UnitedStates
Austria
Turkey
Germany
CzechRepublic
% Downward mobility No mobility Upward mobility
Adults reported higher educational
attainment than their parents
11. Upward educational mobility has changed over time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Turkey
Italy
CzechRepublic
Spain
Austria
Germany
Chile
Ireland
Korea
NorthernIreland
Netherlands
Slovenia
Greece
England
UnitedStates
France
Norway
SlovakRepublic
PIAACaverage
Australia
Denmark
NewZealand
Singapore
Japan
Belgium
Sweden
Israel
Canada
Cyprus
Poland
Estonia
Finland
RussianFederation
Lithuania
Cohort 1 (age 56-65) Cohort 2 (age 46-55) Cohort 3 (age 36-45) Cohort 4 (age 26-35)%
Figure 2.14
12. Equity in education outcomes Figure 2.1
Cognitive
achievement
Socio-emotional
well-being
Educational
attainment
Student
socio-economic
background
Completion of upper secondary and
tertiary education
Years of schooling
Career expectations
Science self-efficacy
Sense of belonging at school
Performance in PISA
Performance in childhood, adolescence
and adulthood
14. Equity can improve, and in relatively short time (Reading)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Peru
Belgium
Indonesia
Finland
Ireland
Singapore
Romania
SlovakRepublic
Greece
Korea
Moldova
Malta
Italy
Austria
Sweden
Macao(China)
Thailand
France
Georgia
Japan
Tunisia
Qatar
Latvia
Spain
CostaRica
Jordan
TrinidadandTobago
Croatia
Estonia
ChineseTaipei
Luxembourg
Iceland
NewZealand
Lithuania
Poland
Colombia
Portugal
Russia
OECDaverage
Norway
Netherlands
Canada
Montenegro
HongKong(China)
CzechRepublic
Bulgaria
Hungary
Australia
Uruguay
Slovenia
UnitedKingdom
Brazil
Denmark
Switzerland
Israel
FYROM
UnitedArabEmirates
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
Germany
UnitedStates
2000 2009 2015%
Figure 2.4
Greaterequity
15. Socio-economic disparities in mathematics are evident among young
children and keep growing during adolescence and early adulthood
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Canada
Greece
Australia
Netherlands
Ireland
Average
(12countries)
Austria
Norway
Czech
Republic
UnitedStates
England
Korea
NewZealand
10-year-olds (TIMSS 1995) 15-year-olds (PISA 2000) 25-29 year-olds (PIAAC)
Standardised gap
Figure 2.6
Less
More
Socio-economicdisparity
16. Equity in education outcomes Figure 2.1
Cognitive
achievement
Socio-emotional
well-being
Educational
attainment
Student
socio-economic
background
Completion of upper secondary and
tertiary education
Years of schooling
Career expectations
Science self-efficacy
Sense of belonging at school
Performance in PISA
Performance in childhood, adolescence
and adulthood
18. Who succeeds despite disadvantage?
Academic resilience
among disadvantaged students
19. Types of academic resilience in PISA Figure 3.1
Types of
academic
resilience
What are these students
able to achieve?
How do we measure it?
International
Academic excellence
by international standards
Socio-economically
disadvantaged
students
in their
own countries
who score…
...in the top quarter of
performance in science
among all students
participating in PISA,
after adjusting for
socio-economic
background
National
Academic excellence
by national standards
...in the top quarter of
performance in science
among students in
their own country
Core-skills
Core knowledge and skills
in key cognitive domains
...at or above Level 3
in PISA
in science, reading and
mathematics
20. The share of academically resilient students varies widely,
both in relative and absolute terms
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
DominicanRepublic
Kosovo
Peru
FYROM
Tunisia
Qatar
Lebanon
Algeria
Georgia
Jordan
UnitedArabEmirates
Montenegro
Brazil
CostaRica
Cyprus
Indonesia
Romania
Colombia
TrinidadandTobago
Mexico
Moldova
Bulgaria
Uruguay
Chile
CABA(Argentina)
Israel
Iceland
SlovakRepublic
Greece
Thailand
Hungary
Luxembourg
Malta
Turkey
Lithuania
Croatia
Sweden
CzechRepublic
Russia
Austria
Norway
Italy
France
Belgium
Denmark
Switzerland
OECDaverage
Ireland
NewZealand
Netherlands
UnitedStates
Australia
Germany
Slovenia
Poland
Latvia
UnitedKingdom
Portugal
Canada
Spain
Korea
Finland
B-S-J-G(China)
ChineseTaipei
Estonia
Japan
Singapore
HongKong(China)
Macao(China)
VietNam
Internationally resilient Nationally resilient Core-skills resilient
%
Figure 3.3
Some countries with fewer
internationally and core-skills
resilient students have many
nationally resilient students
21. Algeria
Macao (China)
Hong Kong (China)
Kosovo
Montenegro
Iceland
FYROM
Russia
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
France
Belgium
Czech Republic
B-S-J-G (China)
Hungary
Luxembourg
Peru
CABA (Argentina)
R² = 0.75
0
5
10
15
20
25
051015202530
Nationallyresilientstudents(%)
Variation in science performance explained by students' socio-economic status (%)
National resilience is strongly linked to equity in student achievement Figure 3.5
Greater equity
OECD average
OECDaverage
22. Some predictors of academic resilience (national resilience)
Difference in the share of resilient students by characteristic
Figure 3.7
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percentage-point dif.
OECD
Pre-primary education:
Started at typical age (vs did not attend)
Gender:
Boys (vs girls)
School location:
City (vs rural area)
Immigrant background:
No (vs immigrant background)
Disciplinary climate in school:
Top quarter (vs bottom quarter)
Skipped a school day in last two weeks:
No (vs yes)
Programme orientation:
General (vs vocational programme)
Motivation to achieve:
Top quarter (vs bottom quarter)
Repeated a grade:
No (vs repeated one or more grades)
School socio-economic profile:
Advantaged (vs disadvantaged school)
23. Who succeeds despite disadvantage?
Social-emotional resilience
among disadvantaged students
24. Index of social and emotional resilience in PISA Figure 3.9
...feel
socially
integrated at
school
... don't
suffer
from
test anxiety
Socially and emotionally resilient students
Disadvantaged students who...
...feel
satisfied
with
their life
Students'
overall
well-being
Students'
social
well-being
Students'
psychological
well-being
and and
25. Some 26% of disadvantaged students are
socially and emotionally resilient
0
20
40
60
80
100
Colombia
DominicanRepublic
Brazil
CostaRica
Peru
Turkey
Uruguay
HongKong(China)
UnitedKingdom
Italy
B-S-J-G(China)
ChineseTaipei
Portugal
Tunisia
Bulgaria
UnitedStates
Macao(China)
Qatar
Montenegro
Japan
Spain
Greece
UnitedArabEmirates
Mexico
Cyprus
Slovenia
Chile
Thailand
Lithuania
Hungary
Ireland
Korea
SlovakRepublic
Luxembourg
OECDaverage
Belgium
Russia
Poland
Austria
Estonia
CzechRepublic
Iceland
France
Latvia
Germany
Croatia
Finland
Switzerland
Netherlands
Feel socially integrated at school Do not suffer from test anxiety Feel satisfied with life
Disad.students(%) Figure 3.10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Index of social and emotional resilience
Index(%)
27. How are disadvantaged students affected by
the socio-economic profile of their school?
The double disadvantage
28. Some 48% of disadvantaged students attend disadvantaged
schools, on average across OECD countries
Figure 4.1
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Finland
Kosovo
Sweden
Albania
Norway
Algeria
FYROM
Croatia
Ireland
Switzerland
TrinidadandTobago
Iceland
Montenegro
NewZealand
HongKong(China)
Canada
UnitedKingdom
Korea
Denmark
Germany
Poland
Singapore
Netherlands
Latvia
Jordan
Malta
Luxembourg
Uruguay
Greece
Estonia
OECDaverage
ChineseTaipei
Austria
UnitedArabEmirates
Slovenia
Portugal
Cyprus¹
Macao(China)
Turkey
Japan
Thailand
Italy
Romania
DominicanRepublic
France
Lithuania
Belgium
SlovakRepublic
Russia
Tunisia
Spain
CzechRepublic
Georgia
UnitedStates
Israel
Australia
Moldova
Brazil
CostaRica
Bulgaria
VietNam
Colombia
Qatar
Chile
Indonesia
Hungary
Lebanon
B-S-J-G(China)
Mexico
CABA(Argentina)
Peru
%
Percentage of disadvantaged students in disadvantaged schools
29. Across OECD countries, disadvantaged students attending advantaged
schools score 78 points higher than those in disadvantaged schools
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
Disadvantaged schools Schools that are neither advantaged nor
disadvantaged
Advantaged schools
Disadvantaged students
Students who are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged
Advantaged students
Mean score
Figure 4.3
But in Finland, Iceland, Macao, Norway
and Poland disadvantaged students
perform equally well in advantaged
and disadvantaged schools
30. In some countries, attending a more advantaged school
is associated with significantly better performance
-40
0
40
80
120
160
Iceland
Finland
Norway
Poland
Moldova
Sweden
Algeria
Mexico
Spain
Peru
CostaRica
Colombia
UnitedStates
Thailand
Denmark
Estonia
Brazil
Macao(China)
Indonesia
Georgia
CABA(Argentina)
Tunisia
Jordan
DominicanRepublic
Lebanon
VietNam
Latvia
Chile
Ireland
Portugal
Uruguay
Russia
Canada
Lithuania
Romania
Australia
Kosovo
FYROM
UnitedArabEmirates
UnitedKingdom
Cyprus
OECDaverage
Luxembourg
Turkey
Switzerland
Israel
SlovakRepublic
Qatar
HongKong(China)
Greece
NewZealand
Bulgaria
Croatia
Montenegro
Italy
Belgium
Singapore
Korea
Austria
B-S-J-G(China)
Hungary
Germany
TrinidadandTobago
ChineseTaipei
CzechRepublic
Malta
Slovenia
Netherlands
France
Japan
Score-point dif. Disadvantaged students
Figure 4.4
On average across OECD countries, a one-unit
increase in school-level socio-economic status is
associated with a 60 score-point improvement in
performance among disadvantaged students
31. CABA (Argentina)
Costa Rica
Sweden
Bulgaria Romania
Viet
Nam
Uruguay
United States
Norway
Chile
Hungary
B-S-J-G
(China)
Turkey
Mexico
Portugal
Iceland
Korea
Albania
Japan
Trinidad and
Tobago
UAE Algeria Ireland
Indonesia
New
Zealand
Colombia
Peru
Macao (China) Spain
Switzerland
Lebanon
Netherlands
Germany
Slovak
Republic
UK
Slovenia
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
Latvia
R² = 0.20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Socio-economicinclusionacrossschools
Academic inclusion across schools (%)
OECD average
OECD
average
Academic and social inclusion across schools
Figure II.5.12
33. In Denmark, PISA performance explains most of the differences in literacy
and numeracy proficiency observed at age 26
Figure 5.8
Percentage
explained by
PISA reading
performance
56%
Percentage
explained by
years of
schooling
5%
Percentage
unexplained
39%
Percentage
explained by
PISA
mathematics
performance
69%
Percentage
explained by
years of
schooling
14%
Percentage
unexplained
17%
Percentage of the difference in PIAAC
literacy proficiency explained
Percentage of the difference in PIAAC
numeracy proficiency explained
34. Educational mobility and school-to-work
transitions among disadvantaged students
Performance at age 15 and progression into
higher education and careers
35. There are strong correlations between performance in PISA and
university completion by age 25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Switzerland Denmark United States Canada Australia
Bottom quarter of performance Second quarter of performance
Third quarter of performance Top quarter of performance
Students who
completed
university
(%)
Figure 5.3
36. Difference in university completion rates between 25-year-old adults
with and without tertiary-educated parents
Figure 5.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
29.3
Australia
24.3
Canada
14.3
Denmark
11.1
Switzerland
21.9
United States
% dif.
Difference before accounting for reading performance
Difference after accounting for reading performance
% of
disadvantaged
students who
completed
university by age
25
Even when comparing students with similar levels of performance, those
with tertiary-educated parents are between 10 and 22 percentage points
more likely to complete university than those with less-educated parents.
37. Students with tertiary-educated parents are between 7 and 20
percentage points more likely to have a skilled job at age 25
Figure 5.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
22.2
Australia
26.6
Canada
30.5
Denmark
16.7
Switzerland
35.5
United States
% dif.
Difference before accounting for reading performance
Difference after accounting for reading performance
% of
disadvantaged
students who
have a skilled job
at age 25
Even when comparing students with similar levels of performance, those with tertiary-educated parents are
between 10 and 13 percentage points more likely to have a skilled job than those with less-educated parents.
38. Educational mobility and school-to-work
transitions among disadvantaged students
Career expectations and progression into
higher education and careers
39. Higher career expectations at age 15 are associated with a greater
likelihood of skilled employment at age 25
Figure 5.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
20.1
Australia
25.4
Canada
26.5
Denmark
19.5
Switzerland
% dif.
Difference before accounting for reading performance
Difference after accounting for reading performance
% in skilled
employment
at age 25 who
did not expect it
at age 15
In Australia, Canada and Denmark, even when comparing
students with similar levels of performance, those with high
career expectations at age 15 are between 7 and 33
percentage points more likely to have a skilled job than those
with lower expectations.
40. Fifteen-year-old students surrounded by peers with high career
expectations are more likely to earn a university degree by age 25
Figure 5.15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
25.9
Australia
27.8
Canada
24.0
Denmark
8.6
Switzerland
% dif.
Difference before accounting for PISA reading performance
Difference after accounting for PISA reading performance
% in schools with
low peer
expectations at
15 who
completed
university by 25
In Australia, Canada and Switzerland, when comparing students with similar levels of performance,
those surrounded by peers with high career expectations at age 15 are between 7 and 20 percentage
points more likely to complete university than those in schools with lower peer expectations.
41. Students who invest greater effort and perseverance at age 15 are
more likely to complete university by 25
Figure 5.10
0
5
10
15
20
25
18.7
Denmark
10.5
Switzerland
25.6
United States
Difference between 15-year-old students with high and those with low perseverance
Difference between 15-year-old students with high and those with low perseverance, after accounting for
parents' education and PISA reading performance% dif.
% of students
with low
effort and
perseverance
who completed
university
42. Some conclusions
• Support disadvantaged children, adolescents and young adults in their
education
• Provide quality early-education programmes to disadvantaged children
• Set ambitious goals and monitor the progress of disadvantaged students
• Develop teachers’ capacity to detect student needs and manage diverse
classrooms
• Target additional resources towards disadvantaged students and schools
• Reduce the concentration of disadvantaged students in particular schools
• Create a climate that favours learning and well-being
• Encourage parent-teacher communication and parental engagement
43. Responsive School Systems: Connecting Facilities, Sectors and
Programmes for Student Success
• Responsive School Systems: Connecting Facilities,
Sectors and Programmes for Student Success
provides analyses and policy options to assist
governments in promoting educational quality,
equity and efficiency through the organisation of
school facilities and education services in a context
of changing demand for school places and evolving
student needs.
44. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa
– All publications
– The complete micro-level database
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
Thank you
Notes de l'éditeur
Sources: Based on Barro-Lee educational attainment dataset (February 2016); and World Bank Country and Lending Groups (reviewed on October 2017). See Table 2.12 for national data.
Sources: Based on Barro-Lee educational attainment dataset (February 2016); and World Bank Country and Lending Groups (reviewed on October 2017). See Table 2.12 for national data.
Notes: The graph refers to the increased likelihood (odds ratio) of completing tertiary education among adults (26 years or older) whose parents had attained a high or middle level of education, relative to adults with low-educated parents.
Note: All odds ratios are statistically significant.
Source: OECD, PIAAC dataset.
Notes: The graph refers to the percentage of adults (26 years or older) who reported lower, the same or higher educational attainment than/as their parents.
Source: OECD, PIAAC dataset.
Upward mobility suggests that younger generations are achieving higher levels of education than their parents, while downward mobility implies that children are achieving lower levels of education than their parents
Note: The graph refers to the percentage of 26-65 year-olds who attained a higher level of education than their parents did, by cohort.
Source: OECD, PIAAC dataset.
This slide can be replicated in order to observe the trends for a specific country (figure 2.17).
Notes: The graphs refers to the predicted probability of completing tertiary education among adults 26 years or older, PIAAC average (33 countries).
Source: OECD, PIAAC dataset.
Notes: The graph refers to the percentage of variation in science performance explained by students' socio-economic status
Statistically significant differences between 2006 and 2015 are shown in dark blue.
Notes: The graph refers to the percentage of variation in reading performance explained by students' socio-economic status.
Statistically significant differences between 2000 and 2009 are shown in dark orange.
Statistically significant differences between 2000 and 2015 are shown in dark blue.
For countries/economies that did not participate in 2000, statistically significant differences between 2009 and 2015 are shown in dark blue.
Notes: The graph refers to the percentage of variation in mathematics performance explained by students' socio-economic status.
Statistically significant differences between 2003 and 2012 are shown in dark green.
Statistically significant differences between 2003 and 2015 are shown in dark blue.
For countries that did not participate in 2003, statistically significant differences between 2012 and 2015 are shown in dark blue.
Notes: The standardised gap refers to the difference in the mean scores of individuals with more than 100 books in the home and individuals with fewer than 100 books, divided by the pooled standard deviation.
Statistically significant differences between 15-year-olds (PISA) and 10-year-olds (TIMSS) are shown by the dark orange triangles.
Statistically significant differences between 25-29 year-olds (PIAAC) and 10-year-olds (TIMSS) are shown by the dark blue diamonds.
There are no statistically significant differences between 25-29 year-olds (PIAAC) and 15-year-olds (PISA).
Notes: The graph refers to the difference between the percentage of socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students who feel they belong at school.
Statistically significant differences between 2003 and 2015 (or 2012 and 2015 for countries not included in 2003) are shown in red.
Statistically significant differences between 2003 and 2012 are shown in dark blue.
Notes: The graph refers to the difference between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students in the index of science self-efficacy.
Statistically significant differences between 2006 and 2015 are shown in dark orange.
Notes: The graph refers to the difference between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students in the International Socio-Economic Index of occupational status (ISEI).
Statistically significant differences between 2006 and 2015 are shown in dark green.
Only the 15 highest-performing countries/economies are shown.
On the top-right, only countries with lower variation (“greater equity“) are shown; on the bottom left, only countries with higher variation (“lower equity“) are shown.
Figure 3.10 in one slide
Note: Statistically significant odds ratio are shown in a darker tone.
Note: The graph refers to the score-point difference in science among disadvantaged students associated with a one-unit increase in school socio-economic profile, after accounting for student socio-economic status.
Notes: The graph refers to the percentage of 25-year-old respondents who completed university.
The difference between the top and the bottom quarters of reading performance are statistically significant in all countries.