PISA 2018 European countries

PISA 2018 Results
Programme for International Student Assessment
VOLUME 1
What Students Know and Can Do
European Union

100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Level 1a
Level 1b
Level 1c
Below Level 1c
Students at Level 1a or below
Students at Level 2 or above
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Students’ proficiency in reading
Fig I.5.1
Countries marked with an asterisk conducted the PISA 2018 assessment on paper. “Level 1c”
refers to “Below Level 1b” as “Level 1c” does not exist in the paper-based assessment.

Mean reading performance [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
Scorepoints
Countries/economies statistically
significantly above the OECD average
Countries/economies NOT statistically
significantly different from the OECD
average
significantly different below the OECD
average
Tab I.4.1
Countries/economies with an asterisk* did not meet response-rate
standards, but further analyses could exclude a large bias in the
published results due to non-response.
!

Level 1
Below Level 1
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Students’ proficiency in mathematics
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2

Mean mathematics performance
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
Scorepoints
average
average
Tab I.4.2
!

100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Level 1a
Level 1b
Below Level 1b
Students’ proficiency in science
Fig I.7.1Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Countries marked with an asterisk conducted the PISA 2018 assessment on paper.

Mean science performance
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
590
Scorepoints
average
average
Tab I.4.3
!

Fig I.4.1
Average performance in reading and variation in performance
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Averageperformanceinreading(inscorepoints)
Standard deviation in reading performance (in score points)
OECD average: 487 Points
OECDaverage:99
Points
Less variability
HigherPerformance
Above-average performance
Above-average variation
Below-average performance
Above-average variation
Below-average variation
Below-average variation

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
35 40 45 50 55 60
Averageperformanceinreading(inscorepoints)
Learning time (in hours per week)
OECD average: 487 Points
OECDaverage:44Hours
Reading performance and total learning time per week
Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the
same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire.
Fig I.4.5

PISA 2018: Learning time ≠ learning outcomes
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Sweden
Estonia
CzechRepublic
Netherlands
Ireland
France
UnitedKingdom
Norway
Iceland
Belgium
Slovenia
Latvia
OECDaverage
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Portugal
SlovakRepublic
Denmark
Poland
Hungary
Austria
Croatia
Bulgaria
Greece
Italy
Scorepointsinreadingperhouroflearningtime
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
Time in school
Learning out of school
Productivity
Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the
same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire.

-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
35
45
NorthMacedonia
Turkey
Macao(China)
Singapore
Jordan
UnitedStates
Moldova
Lebanon
Hungary
Poland
UnitedKingdom
Kosovo
Sweden
Brazil
ChineseTaipei
SlovakRepublic
Qatar
Estonia
Lithuania
Peru
CzechRepublic
Malta
Denmark
Albania
Australia
Austria
CostaRica
UnitedArabEmirates
HongKong(China)
Ireland
Mexico
OECDaverage-36
Korea
NewZealand
Belgium
Montenegro
Romania
Chile
Portugal
Finland
Canada
France
Iceland
Croatia
Switzerland
Italy
Israel
Latvia
Uruguay
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Luxembourg
Bulgaria
Japan
Colombia
Norway
DominicanRepublic
Russia
Thailand
Netherlands
Georgia
Indonesia
Score-pointdifferences(PISA2018–PISA2015)
Change between 2015 and 2018 in mean reading performance
Statistically significant differences
between PISA 2015 and PISA 2018
are shown in a darker tone
Fig I.8.1

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
PISAreadingscore
Increasingly positive
Direction and trajectory of trend in mean performance
Countries/economies with a positive average trend
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Steadily positive
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Positive, but flattening
Fig I.9.1
Macao
(China)
Jordan
Russia
Estonia
Portugal
Chile Montenegro Israel Qatar
Peru Germany Albania Colombia
Romania Poland

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
PISAreadingscore
U-shaped
Countries/economies with no significant average trend
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Flat
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Hump-shaped
Fig I.9.1
Argentina Ireland
Slovenia
Czech
Republic
Uruguay
Japan Mexico France
Canada
United
States
Denmark
Italy Norway Croatia
Austria Bulgaria
OECD
average
Hungary Latvia
Switzer-
land
Hong
Kong
(China)
Belgium
Turkey Indonesia
Chinese
Taipei
Greece
Luxem-
bourg

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
PISAreadingscore
Increasingly negative
Countries/economies with a negative average trend
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Steadily negative
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Negative, but flattening
Fig I.9.1
Korea Netherlands
Thailand
Australia Iceland
New Zealand Finland
Sweden

-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Poland
Portugal
Latvia
Germany
Denmark
Norway
Bulgaria
Italy
France
CzechRepublic
OECDaverage-23
Ireland
Hungary
Switzerland
Austria
Greece
Sweden
Belgium
Finland
Iceland
Luxembourg
SlovakRepublic
Netherlands
Romania
Estonia
Slovenia
Lithuania
UnitedKingdom
Croatia
Malta
Averagethree-yeartrend(score-pointdifference)
Trends in median performance and at the top (90th percentile) and bottom (10th percentile) of the performance distribution
10th percentile
Median
90th percentile
Average three-year trend at different points in the reading proficiency
distribution
Performance improved
Performance decreased
Trend since 2000 2003 2006 2009
Fig I.9.2
Statistically significant changes over
time are shown in a darker tone

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2018 2009%
Percentage of low-achieving students in reading in 2009 and 2018
Fig I.9.3
are marked above the bars
In Ireland, the share of low-achieving
students in reading decreased by 5.4%
over time. In 2018, 12% of students did not
achieve proficiency Level 2.

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CE
LL
RA
NG
E]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[C
E
L
L
R
A
N
G
E]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2018 2009%
Percentage of top performers in reading in 2009 and 2018
Fig I.9.3
are marked above the bars

PISA 2018 Results
Programme for International Student Assessment
VOLUME 2
Where All Students Can Succeed

300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Bulgaria
Romania
Malta
Greece
Luxembourg
SlovakRepublic
Iceland
Hungary
Croatia
Lithuania
Switzerland
Latvia
Netherlands
Italy
France
OECDaverage
Austria
Slovenia
Belgium
Portugal
CzechRepublic
Germany
Denmark
UnitedKingdom
Norway
Sweden
Poland
Estonia
Finland
Ireland
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarterMean score
Mean performance in reading, by national quarter of socio-economic status
Fig II.2.3
In France, students in the top national quarter
outperform students in the bottom quarter of ESCS
by 107 score points in reading.

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
R² = 0.22
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Percentageoftopperformersinreading(atorabove
Level5)
Differences related to socio-economic status in the probability of a student not attaining Level 5 in reading
OECD average: 9%
OECDaverage:0.42
Concentration of top performers amongst the most advantaged students
The relative concentration of high performers by
socio-economic status measures the socio-
economic inequalities in the probability of being a
high performers. The higher this concentration, the
more high performance is prevalent amongst the
most advantaged students
Fig II.2.4
Top performers are more often concentrated amongst the most advantaged students
Higherproportionoftopperformers(atoraboveLevel5)

Strength of the socio-economic gradient and reading performance
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
5101520
Readingperformance(inscorepoints)
Percentage of variation in performance explained by social-economic status
OECD average: 487 points
OECDaverage:12%
Below-average in equity in education
Above-average in equity in education
Greater equity
HigherPerformance
Strength of the relationship between performance and
socio-economic status is below the average
socio-economic status is not statistically significantly
different from the average
socio-economic status is above the average Fig II.2.5

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
Czech Republic
[CELLRANGE]
Poland
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
Macao (China)
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
0510152025
Trends in reading performance
(PISA 2009-2018)
Greater equity
HigherPerformance
Low performance
Low equity
High performance
High equity
Some countries
improved performance
Statistically significant increase in mean
reading performance from 2009 to 2018

[CELLRANGE]
Montenegro
[CELLRANGE]
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
0510152025
Trends in equity
(PISA 2009-2018)
Greater equity
HigherPerformance
Low performance
Low equity
High performance
High equity
Some countries
improved equity
Montenegro is the only
country/economy that improved
both performance and equity
Statistically significant decrease in the
performance gap between advantaged
and disadvantaged students (top/bottom
quarter of ESCS) from 2009 to 2018

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
0510152025
Trends in reading performance
(PISA 2015-2018)
Greater equity
HigherPerformance
Low performance
Low equity
High performance
High equity
Some countries
improved performance
Statistically significant increase in mean
reading performance from 2015 to 2018

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
0510152025
Trends in equity
(PISA 2015-2018)
Greater equity
HigherPerformance
Low performance
Low equity
High performance
High equity
Some countries
improved equity
Statistically significant decrease in the
performance gap between advantaged
and disadvantaged students (top/bottom
quarter of ESCS) from 2015 to 2018

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Percentage of disadvantaged students who scored in the top quarter of reading performance in
their own country (academically resilient students)
%
Academic resilience
Fig II.3.1
In Estonia, 15.6% of students that are in the
bottom quarter of national ESCS score in top
national quarter of reading performance

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage of students exhibiting a growth mindset%
Proportion of students exhibiting a growth mindset
Fig II.3.4
Students with a growth mindset are those who believe
that their abilities and circumstances are not fixed and
can be changed

-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
Percentage-pointdifference
Difference in the share of academically resilient students between those
who exhibited a growth mindset and those who did not
Growth mindset and student resilience
Statistically significant differences are
shown in a darker tone
More academically resilient students were found
amongst those who reported a growth mindset in
almost all countries/economies
Fig II.3.5
The sample is restricted to disadvantaged students

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Netherlands
Finland
Croatia
Romania
Austria
Estonia
Germany
Spain
Switzerland
Slovenia
Portugal
Hungary
Lithuania
Iceland
Greece
Latvia
Sweden
OECDaverage
Italy
Poland
SlovakRepublic
Luxembourg
CzechRepublic
Ireland
Bulgaria
France
UnitedKingdom
Malta
Percentageofstudentswithpositivewell-being
Disadvantaged students (bottom quarter of socio-economic status)
Advantaged students (top quarter of socio-economic status)
Students' well-being, by socio-economic status
Students with positive well-being refers to students
who reported that they are satisfied with their lives, do
not feel like outsiders at school and do not doubt their
future plans when facing failure
Statistically significant differences are
shown in a darker tone
Fig II.3.7
In most countries/economies advantaged
students reported a more positive well-being
than disadvantaged students.

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Between-school variation Within-school variation
PercentageofthetotalvariationinperformanceacrossOECDcountries
Variation in reading performance between and within schools
Fig II.4.1
OECD average: 29%
OECD average: 71%
In Finland, only 7% of the variation in reading performance
that is observed in total across OECD countries is found
between schools, but 96% within schools.

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Isolation index
Isolation of disadvantaged students from high-achieving students in
reading
Fig II.4.6
Lower probability for disadvantaged students to attend a school that enrols high-achieving students

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Score-pointdifference(girls-boys)
Gender gap in reading performance
All differences are statistically significant
Girls perform better in reading than
boys in all countries/economies
Fig II.7.1

0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Score points
Reading
Distribution of proficiency in reading and mathematics, by gender
Largershareofstudents
Girls
Boys
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Score points
Mathematics
All PISA countries and economies average
This figure is a histogram of
performance using an interval
size of five score points.
!
Fig II.7.4

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
R² = 0.02
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Changeinpercentageofimmigrantstudent
Change in reading performance amongst all students
Change in proportion of immigrant students and change in reading
proficiency amongst all students
Fig II.9.2
Statistically significant changes in both the
proportion of immigrant students and the score
difference are shown in a darker tone

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slovenia
Iceland
Germany
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Austria
Denmark
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Italy
UnitedKingdom
Malta
Ireland
France
Belgium
Greece
OECDaverage
UnitedArabEmirates
Spain
Estonia
Portugal
Croatia
% First-generation immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students
Percentage of immigrant students who do not speak the language of
instruction at home
Fig II.9.4

300
350
400
450
500
550
Estonia
Finland
Sweden
Ireland
Germany
UnitedKingdom
Denmark
Norway
Belgium
Switzerland
Slovenia
France
Austria
Netherlands
Portugal
OECDaverage
Luxembourg
Italy
Croatia
Iceland
Greece
Malta
Mean score
Immigrant students Non-immigrant students
Average performance in reading, by immigrant background
Fig II.9.5

250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Cyprus
Malta
SlovakRepublic
Greece
Hungary
Lithuania
Latvia
Iceland
Croatia
Italy
Luxembourg
CzechRepublic
OECDaverage
Portugal
Netherlands
Austria
France
Slovenia
Switzerland
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
UnitedKingdom
Germany
Ireland
Sweden
Finland
Estonia
Mean score Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students
Average performance in reading, by immigrant background
Fig II.9.5

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Finland
Denmark
Estonia
Portugal
Malta
UnitedKingdom
OECDaverage
Netherlands
Slovenia
France
Belgium
Italy
Iceland
Sweden
Spain
Norway
Australia
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Index of isolation of immigrant students in schoolMean index
Segregation of immigrant students across countries
Fig II.9.8

PISA 2018 European countries

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from dvndamme

More from dvndamme (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PISA 2018 European countries