East Asia and Pacific Region PISA * 2018 Programme for International Student Assesment EAST ASIA A N D PA C I F I C REGIONAL BRIEF 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................................... 3 EQUITY ....................................................................................................................................10 POLICY ACTIONS TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC RESILIENCE OF DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS ..............................................................................................................................20 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................25 ANNEX I: PARTICIPATION IN PISA .........................................................................................26 ANNEX II: COUNTRY BRIEFS .................................................................................................27 Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Zhejiang (China) Brunei Darussalam Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) Indonesia Japan Korea Macao (China) Malaysia Philippines Singapore Thailand i FOREWORD The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, with a focus on Reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence.1 PISA results allow participating countries to understand what students know and do not know, benchmark their achievements against other countries, and draw policy implications to strengthen their education systems. This report summarizes characteristics of PISA results among the countries and economies in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) region, including Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Zhejiang (China), Brunei Darussalam, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Macao (China), Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.2 In particular, the report focuses on sub-regional comparisons between the five Southeast Asian developing countries (hereafter SEA), i.e., Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. The aim of this report is to provide a timely overview of the PISA 2018 performance among EAP countries. The summary statistics presented in this document are primarily based on PISA 2018 test score analysis conducted by the World Bank Group (WBG)’s Education Global Practice. The narrative and additional analysis for this report was developed by an EAP education team, consisting of Sachiko Kataoka (Senior Economist), Anna Alejo (Consultant), and Kenglin Lai (Consultant). The findings do not necessarily represent the views of the WBG or its member countries and economies. 1 Among the EAP countries, only Indonesia participated in financial literacy assessment. Global competence assessment was conducted in Brunei Darussalam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and Thailand (OECD. 2019. PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Vol. I. Paris: OECD). The results will become available at the end of 2020. 2 Vietnam participated in PISA 2018, but is not included in the list as the OECD has decided that the results were not internationally comparable due to technical irregularity. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overall performance. In 2018, 13 countries school management. More analysis is and economies in the East Asia and Pacific needed to explore possible factors. (EAP) Region participated in PISA and consisted of two distinct groups in terms of Between 2009 and 2018, performance gaps PISA performance. One group consists of between the highest- (90th percentile) and high-income, top performers, and the other is lowest-performing (10th percentile) students middle-income, low performers in the have widened in the region. Only Macao Southeast Asia (SEA) sub-region. The former (China) saw a reduction in the share of tends to perform better than expected given students scoring below Level 2 proficiency, their income levels and their spending on while simultaneously increasing the education, while the latter tends to perform proportion of those at or above Level 5. worse than expected. Brunei Darussalam is Significant changes in socioeconomic an outlier, with high-income and high inequities in performance were not observed spending but low performance. in majority of countries, except for Malaysia which saw a significant widening of In terms of proficiency, there were wide socioeconomic gaps in Reading performance. variations among countries and economies Gender gaps in performance shrank and within each county and economy. While significantly for many countries and over 85 percent of students in high- economies; however, for Indonesia and performing countries reached the basic level Japan, the narrowing of the gender gap was of proficiency, less than half of students in due not to an improvement in boys’ poor-performing countries did. performance, but to a significant decline in girls’ performance. Performance and education spending. Across the world, there is a strong positive Equity. Across the EAP region, including relationship between performance and per high-performing countries and economies, student spending up to a certain spending the widest gaps were observed between level. However, all middle-income countries in socio-economically advantaged and the EAP region (i.e., the SEA developing disadvantaged students. On average, countries) performed lower than expected socioeconomically advantaged students given their level of spending, suggesting that outperformed their disadvantaged peers by they need to spend more effectively. 75 points in Reading, equivalent to 2-2.5 years of schooling. Performance over time. Whether high or poor performers, overall, PISA Reading In terms of school location, urban schools scores for most EAP countries have performed better than rural schools by 38 stagnated or deteriorated over the last 18 points on average. There were significant years. For the SEA developing countries, the gender gaps in Reading performance in favor fact that more and more students—who tend of girls, though the EAP average gender to come from disadvantaged backgrounds— disparity (20 points) was narrower than that of are enrolled in school and participating in the OECD average (30 points). Overall, PISA might have contributed to the stagnation students who speak the language of test at or deterioration of performance. For high- home performed better than those who speak performing countries, the stagnation might a different language at home with a wide have been caused by their inability to improve variation in the performance gap among the core elements of their education systems EAP countries. In all but three EAP countries such as curriculum, teacher quality, and and economies (i.e., Japan, Hong Kong 1 (China), and Chinese Taipei), students in private schools outperformed those in public schools. Lastly, the limited cases found that students who attended more than a year of early childhood development programs performed 11-18 points higher, on average, than those who did not. Policy actions to improve performance of disadvantaged students. This report explored several factors that might be influencing student performance and discussed possible policy actions that could help disadvantaged students to be more academic resilient. First, not surprisingly, a more positive disciplinary climate contributed to better performance. Second, disadvantaged students who reported higher motivation levels tended to perform better than those with lower levels of motivation. Third, PISA-participating countries and economies where schools had higher levels of student segregation tended to have the strongest relationship between socioeconomic status and performance. To enhance academic resilience of disadvantaged students, government and schools could take the following measures among others: improving disciplinary climates of schools; adopting the mastery learning approach to the level of each learner to foster a growth mindset in students; and assigning high-qualified teachers in schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students. 2 OVERALL PERFORMANCE Overall performance Since its first round in 2000, an increasing number of countries and economies in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region have recognized the importance of assessing their students’ learning outcomes using international assessments and joined PISA. Figure 1 shows average PISA 2018 scores in Reading, Math, and Science for each country, illustrating the performance divide. The EAP Region consists of two distinct groups in terms of PISA performance. One group consists of high-income, top performers, and the other is middle-income, low performers in the Southeast Asia (SEA) sub-region. Brunei Darussalam is an outlier, with high- income and high spending but low performance. Reading scores in EAP ranged from 555 for Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang (B-S-J-Z) (China) to 340 for the Philippines. The difference was over 200 score points, equivalent to 5-6 years of schooling. Regardless of the groups, almost all countries in the EAP region scored the lowest in Reading among the three subjects. This is a unique characteristic of the EAP region. Interestingly, lower-performing countries did best in Science, while high-performing countries did best in Math. Figure 1: PISA 2018 average score by subject Reading Mathematics Science 600 OECD avg. Burnei Darussalam EAP avg. 550 B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Malaysia SEA dev. avg. 500 Macao (China) Thailand Hong Kong (China) Korea Japan Chinese Taipei Indonesia 450 Philippines 400 350 300 Math 353 379 404 419 430 440 490 489 531 527 526 551 558 569 591 Science 357 396 409 426 431 438 487 489 516 529 519 517 544 551 590 Reading 340 371 385 393 408 415 472 487 503 504 514 524 525 549 555 Source: PISA 2018 database Note: Data for Hong Kong (China) did not meet the PISA technical standards but were accepted as largely comparable. In terms of proficiency, about one-third of students in the EAP region scored below Level 2 proficiency for each subject with wide variations among countries and economies and within each county and economy (see Figure 2). Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate 3 effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers, and citizens (OECD 2017). Since 2015, the share of students below the minimum level of proficiency changed only marginally in most countries, whereas it significantly increased in Thailand and Indonesia. On average across the EAP, about 10 percent of students attained the highest levels of proficiency (Levels 5-6) in Reading and Science, and about 17 percent achieved the same in Math. B-S-J-Z (China) had the largest share of top-performers in the world. Among the SEA developing countries, the share of these students was only about 3 percent or lower for all subjects. Reading While the proportion of highest achievers at Levels 5 and 6 is the greatest among the top performing EAP countries, there are very few of them among low performing EAP countries. Students achieving Levels 5 and 6 are “able to comprehend lengthy texts, deal with concepts that are abstract or counterintuitive, and establish distinctions between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to the content or source of the information� (OECD 2019b, p. 14). B-S-J-Z (China) and Singapore scored significantly higher in Reading than all other countries and economies that participated in PISA 2018. These top performers were followed by Macao (China) and Hong Kong (China). On average across EAP countries, about 71 percent of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in Reading with a wide variation across the countries. The students who achieved Level 2 proficiency in Reading are able to “identify the main idea in a text of moderate length, find information based on explicit, though sometimes complex, criteria, and reflect on the purpose and form of texts when explicitly directed to do so� (OECD 2019b, p. 17). Over 85 percent of students in B-S-J-Z (China), Hong Kong (China), Macao (China), and Singapore performed at this level or above. By contrast, more than half of students in Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines were unable to reach the minimum level of proficiency in Reading. Among the three subjects included in the PISA, Reading had the lowest scores across all EAP countries. Mathematics and Science Overall, performance in Math and Science was similar for the EAP countries. As in the case for Reading, B-S-J-Z (China) and Singapore scored the highest in Math and Science. These countries also had the largest proportion of students reaching the highest levels of proficiency (Levels 5-6) in these subjects. For all countries in the EAP region, the share of high-performing students was largest for Math among all subjects. More than a quarter of students in Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Singapore, and B-S-J-Z (China) reached Levels 5-6 proficiency in Math. Around one in six 15-year-old students in B-S-J-Z (China) (17 percent) and about one in seven students in Singapore (14 percent) scored at Level 6 in Math, compared to 2.4 percent on average across OECD countries. These students are capable of advanced mathematical thinking and reasoning. Similarly, in Science, at least one in every five 15-year-old students in Singapore and B-S-J-Z (China) attained these highest levels of proficiency. 4 Figure 2: PISA 2018 proficiency level by subject Reading B-S-J-Z (China) 5 Macao (China) Level 1a Students below 11 Singapore 11 Level 1b Level 2 Hong Kong (China) 13 Level 1c Korea 15 Japan 17 Below Level 1c Chinese Taipei 18 Level 2 OECD avg. 23 Level 3 EAP avg. 31 Malaysia 46 Level 4 Brunei Darussalam 52 Level 5 Thailand 60 SEA dev. avg. Level 6 62 Students at or Indonesia 70 above Level 2 Philippines 81 % 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Mathematics B-S-J-Z (China) 2 Macao (China) 5 Level 1 Singapore Students below 7 Level 2 Below Level 1 Hong Kong (China) 9 Japan 11 Level 2 Chinese Taipei 14 Level 3 Korea 15 OECD avg. 24 Level 4 EAP avg. 29 Level 5 Malaysia 41 Brunei Darussalam 48 Level 6 Thailand 53 Students at SEA dev. avg. 59 or above Indonesia 72 Level 2 Philippines 81 % 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 % % Science B-S-J-Z (China) 2 Macao (China) 6 Level 1a Singapore Students below 9 Level 1b Japan Level 2 11 Hong Kong (China) Below Level 1b 12 Korea 14 Level 2 Chinese Taipei 15 Level 3 OECD avg. 22 EAP avg. 26 Level 4 Malaysia 37 Level 5 Thailand 44 Level 6 Brunei Darussalam 46 SEA dev. avg. 53 Students at or Indonesia 60 above Level 2 Philippines 78 % 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: Below Basic proficiency: < level 2; Intermediate proficiency: >= level 2 & < level 5; High proficiency: >= level 5. Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers and citizens (OECD 2017). 5 Across the EAP countries, the share of students who attained at least a Level 2 proficiency was around 71 percent for Math and around 74 percent for Science, but the share was extremely high among low performing countries. These students can recognize the correct explanation for familiar scientific phenomena and can use such knowledge to identify, in simple cases, whether a conclusion is valid based on the data provided. The proportion of students who reached the minimum levels of proficiency in Math and Science ranged from over 90 percent in B-S-J-Z (China), Macao (China), and Singapore to less than 25 percent in the Philippines. Among the SEA developing countries, close to half of the students in Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines were unable to attain at least a Level 2 proficiency in Math and Science. On average across the SEA developing countries, around one-third of students scored below Level 1 in Math, indicating they are unable to perform even direct and straightforward mathematical tasks. Performance and education spending More spending might not necessarily lead to better performance unless it is spent effectively. Figure 3 illustrates a strong positive relationship between average Reading performance and cumulative per student spending, but only up to around $50,000, after accounting for purchasing power parities (PPP). 3 Above this threshold, all EAP countries performed higher than expected, except for Brunei Darussalam which scored significantly lower than what is expected given their level of spending. Below this threshold, all EAP countries performed lower than expected given their level of education spending per student. Performance over time Among the EAP countries, only Macao (China) saw significant improvements in mean performance across all three subjects over their participation in PISA. The OECD (2019b) analyzed countries’ performance based on average three-year trend4, where only countries and economies that participated in PISA 2018 and at least one assessment prior to PISA 2015 were included. Among PISA-participating countries and economies, only seven, including Macao (China), saw significant improvements in mean performance across all three subjects over their participation in PISA. Overall, scores in most EAP countries have not improved, but have stagnated or even deteriorated over the last 18 years. Figure 4 illustrates changes in Reading scores between the years 2000 and 2018. For instance, Indonesia continued improving its score between 2000 and 2009, but the gain has gradually been lost by 2018. The scores for Korea and Japan declined after peaking in 2006 and in 2012, respectively. An exception is Singapore whose score improved from 526 in 2009 to 549 in 2018. The OECD also found that seven PISA-participating countries and economies saw a significant decline in their mean performance across all three subjects, among which includes Korea from the EAP (OECD 2019b). 3 Cumulative per student spending is approximated by multiplying the expenditure per student on educational institutions in 2018 (from public and private sources), at each level of education, by the theoretical duration of education at the respective level, up to the age of 15 (OECD 2019a). 4 The average three-year trend is, the average change, per three-year period, between the earliest available measurement in PISA and PISA 2018, calculated by a linear regression. 6 Figure 3: PISA 2018 Reading score and cumulative per student spending in USD PPP 580 Singapore R² = 0.4955 Hong Kong (China) PISA 2018 Score in Reading 530 Estonia Canada Macao (China) Ireland Finland Korea Poland New Zealand Sweden United States United Kingdom Japan Germany Australia Norway Portugal Slovenia Belgium Czech Republic France Chinese Taipei Russia Croatia OECD average Austria OECD average: 487 points 480 Latvia Netherlands Belarus Hungary Italy Iceland Ukraine Lithuania Israel Luxembourg Turkey Slovak Republic Chile Greece Serbia Malta Romania 430 Moldova Uruguay Montenegro Mexico Cyprus Bulgaria Jordan Brazil Malaysia Colombia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Bosnia and Herzegovina OECD average USD: 89,092 Peru Argentina Thailand North Macedonia Kazakhstan 380 Panama Indonesia Dominican Republic Philippines 330 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Cumulative expenditure per student over the theoretical duration of studies (in US dollars) Source: OECD 2019b. Figure 4: PISA scores for Reading, 2000-2018 580 Shanghai Shanghai (China) B-S-J-Z Korea Singapore 530 Japan OECD 480 B-S-J-G EAP Malaysia Brunei 430 Thailand Darussalam SEA dev. 380 Indonesia Philippines 330 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 Source: PISA 2018 database. Notes: In 2015, the results for Malaysia may not have been comparable to those for other countries or for other years due to the low response rate. Hence, the trend line connects 2012 and 2018. 7 The following sections summarize changes in performance related to levels of proficiency, socioeconomic status, and gender gaps as analyzed by OECD (2019b; 2019c). The performance gap between the highest and lowest performing students has widened over time in most countries in the EAP region. A comparison of trends at the high (90th percentile) and low (10th percentile) ends of the performance distribution with trends in mean Reading performance suggests a widening performance gap in the region. Malaysia and Singapore showed a pattern of widening gaps in Reading performance since their first participation in 2009, with no improvement in Reading at the 10th percentile and increasingly large improvements at the 90th percentile. The gap between the highest- and lowest-performing students in Hong Kong (China), Macao (China), and Chinese Taipei also widened, with declining performance at the 10th percentile and significant improvements at the 90th percentile. For these countries and economies, the inter-decile range (i.e., the distance between the 10th and 90th percentiles) grew between their first PISA participation and PISA 2018. In Macao (China), for instance, the inter-decile range increased by 64 points between PISA 2003 and PISA 2018 (OECD 2019b).5 In most countries, the proportion of students scoring below Level 2 in Reading has remained the same or increased, while a few countries saw a significant increase in the share of students scoring above level 5. Between 2009, when Reading was also the main subject assessed in PISA, and 2018, only Macao (China) among EAP countries saw a reduction in the share of students scoring below Level 2 in Reading by 4.1 percentage points, while simultaneously increasing the proportion of students scoring at or above Level 5 by 10.9 percentage points. Singapore and Chinese Taipei significantly increased the share of students at or above Level 5 by 10.1 and 5.7 percentage points, respectively, but saw no significant change in the share of those below Level 2. To the contrary, in Thailand and Indonesia, the proportion of students scoring below Level 2 increased by about 17 percentage points, with no significant change in the share of students performing at or above Level 5 below Level 2 (OECD 2019b). There has been little change in socioeconomic inequities in performance. Comparing the most disadvantaged students with the most advantaged in their country/economy, as defined in 2009 and 2018, no significant changes were observed in majority of countries. Among countries and economies in the EAP region, only Malaysia saw a significant widening of socioeconomic gaps in Reading performance between 2009 and 2018 (OECD 2019c).6 The gender gap has generally decreased, but in some countries, it was because performance of the lower performing gender improved, while in others that of higher performing gender deteriorated. The gender gap in Reading performance shrank significantly in 36 of the 64 countries and economies that participated in PISA 2009 and 2018. In Macao (China) and Singapore, both boys and girls in 2018 scored higher in Reading than their counterparts did in 2009, even as the gender gap between them shrank during the period. However, in Indonesia and Japan, the narrowing of the gender gap was due not to an improvement in boys’ performance, but to a significant decline in girls’ performance (OECD 2019c).7 5 PISA data tables by OECD (2019b) on trends along distribution of performance and changes at different levels of proficiency accessed at https://doi.org/10.1787/888934029090. 6 PISA data tables by OECD (2019c) students’ socioeconomic status and performance accessed at https://doi.org/10.1787/888934038609. 7 PISA data tables by OECD (2019c) trends in gender gap accessed at https://doi.org/10.1787/888934038704. 8 Coverage In countries with smaller shares of 15-year-olds were represented, the PISA outcomes would likely be lower if out-of-school 15-year-olds were included. The result of PISA reflects only that for 15-year-olds who are enrolled in school; if tested, those 15-year-olds out of school would likely perform worse. Figure 5 shows the share of 15-year-olds who were represented in the PISA 2018 sample. A low percentage suggests that a high proportion of 15-year-olds have already dropped out of school or are not attending school for some reason. On average, 79 percent of 15-year-olds were represented in PISA in the SEA developing countries. It is striking that 97 percent of 15-year-olds in Brunei Darussalam were represented in PISA. It should also be noted that the proportion was relatively high for Indonesia (85 percent), which considerably increased its share from 46 percent in 2003. Among the SEA countries, the share was lowest (68 percent) in the Philippines, reflecting the high dropout rate at the lower secondary level. Figure 5: The share of 15-year-olds represented by the PISA 2018 sample 98 97 95 100 92 91 88 88 88 86 85 81 79 80 72 72 68 Percentage 60 40 20 0 Hong Kong Japan Darussalam Indonesia SEA dev. Thailand Macao (China) Korea Singapore Chinese B-S-J-Z Malaysia Philippines average EAP average (China) OECD Taipei (China) avg.* Brunei Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: *SEA developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. 9 EQUITY This section examines inequity in student performance in Reading within each country and economy in terms of the following dimensions: (i) socioeconomic status; (ii) urban and rural locations; (iii) gender; (iv) language spoken at home and language of test; (v) type of school (public vs. private); and (vi) attendance in early childhood education. Across the EAP region, including high-performing countries and economies, the widest gaps were observed between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged students. Figure 6 illustrates equity profiles using proficiency levels by various dimensions. 8 These inequities were amongst the largest in all countries and economies participating in PISA, and particularly so between socioeconomically advantaged (top 20 percent) and disadvantaged (bottom 20 percent) students. On average across the EAP, 44 percent of disadvantaged students scored below Level 2—basic proficiency level—in Reading; on average across SEA developing countries, this proportion was even larger at 77 percent. 8 Some countries do not have enough data to present equity profile by some of these dimensions. 10 Figure 6: Equity profiles using proficiency levels Brunei Darussalam China 4.2% 0.2% 1.5% 0.2% 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 5.4% 5.9% 0.7% 0.7% 4.8% 100% 100% 5% 9% 41% 22% 23% 20% 21% 28% 41% 27% 40% 43% 75% 53% 45% 75% 44% 48% 76% 70% 74% 77% 50% 50% 81% 84% 72% 60% 58% 58% 73% 73% 74% 73% 69% 54% 56% 54% 25% 50% 45% 20% 25% 25% 18% 18% 0% 10% 11% 5% 4% 6% 5% 3% Other Females Top 20% Public Immigrant Private Rural Bottom 20% Males Non-immigrant Same as test Urban 0% 1% Females Public Top 20% Private Bottom 20% Urban Rural Males ESCS Language School Location Gender Generation ESCS Location Gender School at home Type Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Indonesia Malaysia 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%0.1% 2.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 1.6% 100% 100% 18% 19% 24% 29% 21% 22% 33% 34% 32% 35% 36% 32% 41% 55% 47% 40% 75% 50% 75% 49% 53% 61% 60% 61% 79% 50% 50% 75% 71% 79% 78% 82% 81% 68% 67% 68% 65% 64% 66% 53% 59% 59% 25% 44% 51% 39% 46% 25% 50% 39% 38% 19% 0% 0% Other Females Top 20% Public Bottom 20% Private Rural Males Urban Same as test Top 20% Females Bottom 20% Same as test Public (dependent) (independent) No Attendance Urban Rural Males Other > 1 year Private Private ESCS Location Gender Language School ECD ESCS Location Gender Language School at home Type at home Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Philippines Thailand 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 100% 15% 100% 4% 6% 15% 22% 26% 23% 19% 23% 22% 20% 23% 16% 31% 23% 43% 41% 75% 45% 56% 75% 49% 57% 67% 50% 50% 96% 94% 77% 85% 81% 84% 77% 78% 80% 74% 69% 77% 77% 85% 78% 56% 59% 25% 55% 25% 51% 43% 43% 32% 0% 0% Females (independent) Top 20% Public (dependent) Bottom 20% Urban Rural Males Top 20% Females Bottom 20% Same as test Public No Attendance (dependent) (independent) Urban Males Other > 1 year Rural Private Private Private Private ESCS Location Gender Language School ECD ESCS Location Gender School at home Type Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Source: World Bank based on PISA 2018 database. 11 Figure 6: Equity profiles using proficiency levels – continued Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) 100% 3% 3% 8% 3% 100% 8% 12% 10% 12% 13% 18% 12% 16% 16% 10% 15% 13% 18% 21% 25% 25% 75% 75% 65% 61% 63% 69% 71% 73% 71% 73% 68% 50% 74% 73% 73% 50% 73% 74% 74% 67% 74% 75% 71% 68% 25% 25% 32% 36% 34% 8% 14% 21% 14% 14% 21% 7% 19% 8% 17% 11% 10% 17% 11% 18% 7% 8% 0% 0% Other Females Public Top 20% Native Bottom 20% First Private Males Same as test Second Other Females (independent) Top 20% Public Bottom 20% Males (dependent) Same as test Private Private ESCS Gender Language School ESCS Gender Generation Language School at home Type at home Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Japan Korea 100% 3% 100% 5% 11% 9% 11% 9% 14% 12% 11% 14% 18% 23% 30% 75% 75% 70% 50% 70% 73% 72% 70% 75% 70% 73% 71% 64% 50% 76% 74% 72% 25% 25% 19% 11% 16% 14% 0% 6% 6% 25% Top 20% Bottom 20% Public (independent) (dependent) Females Males 28% Private 21% Private 13% 15% 19% 9% 0% Top 20% Bottom Females Males Public Private 20% ESCS Gender School ESCS Gender School Type Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Macao (China) Singapore 100% 100% 10% 15% 12% 11% 14% 16% 16% 4% 12% 10% 17% 20% 32% 28% 23% 25% 36% 27% 32% 25% 33% 75% 75% 43% 70% 78% 75% 75% 76% 68% 50% 77% 76% 77% 78% 50% 67% 72% 63% 63% 63% 65% 63% 63% 60% 61% 59% 25% 52% 25% 25% 8% 13% 8% 14% 14% 10% 8% 7% 9% 3% 22% 16% 11% 0% 0% 4% 8% 14% 12% 5% 10% 7% 8% Other Females (independent) Top 20% Native First (dependent) Bottom 20% Males Same as test Second Other Females Top 20% Native Public First Private Bottom 20% Males Same as test Second Private Private ESCS Gender Generation Language School ESCS Gender Generation Language School at home Type at home Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Source: World Bank based on PISA 2018 database. 12 Socioeconomic status Socioeconomic status is a strong predictor of Reading performance, particularly in SEA developing countries where there is wider inequity in education opportunities relative to other countries in the region. Figure 7 shows the percentage of variation in Reading outcomes explained by students’ socioeconomic status. The higher the percentage of variation explained by socioeconomic status, the stronger the correlation between individual score and socioeconomic status. 9 In other words, the higher the percentage, the better socioeconomic status predicts students’ performance. In the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam, students’ socioeconomic status explains at least 3 times more variation in Reading performance than in Macao (China) and Hong Kong (China). Figure 7: Percentage of variation in Reading outcomes explained by socioeconomic status 20 18.0 Greater equity in education 16.0 16.3 15 opportunities 13.2 12.0 12.0 12.6 Percentage 11.4 10 7.8 8.0 8.0 5.1 5 1.7 0 Japan Thailand Korea Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei Singapore Malaysia Macao (China) B-S-J-Z China Philippines Indonesia Brunei Darussalam OECD avg. Source: PISA 2018 database. On average across the EAP, socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed their disadvantaged peers by 75 points in Reading (see Figure 8), equivalent to about 2-2.5 years of schooling.10 The disparities in EAP countries ranged from 38 points in Macao (China) to 111 points in Brunei Darussalam. Among the high-performing countries and economies, gaps were high in Singapore (109 points), Chinese Taipei (100 points), and B-S-J-Z China (91 points). Among the low-performing countries, gaps were high in Brunei Darussalam (111 points), Malaysia (102 points), and the Philippines (98 points). 9 The percentage is the R square value after running single linear regression between students’ Reading score and socioeconomic status. 10 In 2012, the OECD defined that 30 score points are equivalent to one year of schooling. In 2015, it changed to 40 score points. In 2018, “because of the limited evidence about differences in PISA scores across school grades, for the same (or otherwise similar) students, and of the variability in these differences that is expected across subjects and countries� (OECD 2019b, p. 45) the OECD refrained from defining PISA score differences in terms of an exact “years - of-schooling� equivalent. However, the report presents a number of evidence which suggests roughly 30-40 score points be equivalent to one year of schooling. 13 Figure 8: Difference in PISA scores in Reading by ESCS (top 20% and bottom 20% socioeconomic quintiles) 120 109 111 98 100 102 100 91 77 78 81 72 75 80 65 57 60 38 40 20 0 Indonesia Japan SEA dev. total Thailand Macao (China) Hong Kong (China) EAP total Chinese Taipei Korea B-S-J-Z China Philippines Malaysia Singapore Brunei Darussalam Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: The EAP and SEA developing total are weighted by population. Location Students in urban schools11 tended to perform better than those in rural schools in EAP countries by 38 points on average, equivalent to about one year of schooling (see Figure 9). The largest difference (55 points) in Reading scores by school location, in favor of urban schools, was observed in B-S-J-Z (China). The narrowest gap (14 points) was found in Malaysia. Across all SEA developing countries, students in urban schools were significantly more likely than their peers in rural schools to hold a growth mindset—the belief that one’s ability and intelligence can develop over time. Efforts to instill a growth mindset among students lagging in performance may be an important area for policy interventions, as having a growth mindset was positively related to academic resilience and motivation to master tasks. 11This report categorizes schools as “rural� if they are located within a village, hamlet, or rural area with fewer than 3,000 people; otherwise, schools are categorized as “urban�. 14 Figure 9: Difference in PISA scores in Reading by school location (urban vs. rural) Rural Urban 600 558 550 500 503 450 412 418 398 400 375 381 400 342 404 350 383 360 362 346 300 340 303 250 SEA dev. total Indonesia Darussalam Thailand EAP total Philippines Malaysia B-S-J-Z China Burnei Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: The EAP and SEA developing total are weighted by population. There was no relevant data for small city countries and economies, such as Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Singapore, and Chinese Taipei, because they do not have enough rural schools for comparison. Gender Overall, gender gaps in EAP countries and economies are small relative to other countries and economies participating in PISA. The only significant gender gaps in EAP are in Reading, where girls do better (Figure 10). On average across EAP countries, girls outperformed boys in Reading by 20 points, which was lower than the OECD average gender gap of 30 points. Only two EAP countries and economies, Hong Kong (China) and Thailand, had gender gaps that were wider than the OECD average difference. Among EAP countries, the gender disparity was lowest (13 points) in B-S-J-Z (China) and widest (39 points) in Thailand. In all EAP countries and economies with mean Reading scores above the OECD average score, namely, B-S-J-Z (China), Singapore, Korea, and Japan, gender disparities in Reading were smaller than that of the OECD average gender gap. Previous evidence (e.g., OECD 2010; OECD 2015) suggests that the relationship between academic performance and enjoyment of reading is strong. In all PISA-participating countries and economies, girls reported much greater enjoyment of reading than boys. When students enjoy reading and practice it regularly, they are able to improve their reading skills. Narrowing the gender gap in reading could be addressed through concerted efforts by parents, teachers, and schools to give boys a greater choice in what they read to help them develop an enjoyment of reading which, in turn, could lead to an improvement in their reading skills. 15 Figure 10: Difference in PISA scores in Reading by gender Females Males 600 561 562 542 536 550 526 514 514 502 549 500 538 514 503 507 423 428 428 492 493 450 411 472 382 383 400 352 408 393 402 350 372 355 358 325 300 Japan SEA dev. total Indonesia Thailand EAP total Chinese Taipei Macao (China) Philippines Malaysia OECD avg. Korea Hong Kong (China) Singapore B-S-J-Z China Burnei Darussalam Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: The EAP and SEA developing total are weighted by population. Language at home Overall, students who speak the language of test at home do better than those who speak a different language at home, but there are wide differences across countries in the influence of language on performance (see Figure 11). The widest gaps (over 65 points) in Reading scores were observed in Brunei Darussalam, Macao (China), and Chinese Taipei, whereas these differences were smallest (less than 10 points) in Indonesia and the Philippines. It is interesting to note that these gaps do not appear to correspond with the differences in the shares of students speaking the language of test at home (see Figure 12). Among the Philippines, Indonesia, and Brunei Darussalam, which have the highest proportion of students speaking another language at home, the performance gap was low in the first two countries, but very high in the last. Hence, the factor might be affecting in different ways in each of these countries, and further investigation of the possible impact of language differences should be conducted. 16 Figure 11: Difference in PISA scores in Reading by language spoken at home and language of test Students who speak the language of assessment at home Students who speak another language at home 573 580 538 531 530 513 497 519 480 503 429 469 430 446 374 380 343 397 368 386 330 340 Hong Kong Singapore Indonesia Malaysia Darussalam Chinese Taipei Philippines Macao (China) (China) Burnei Source: PISA 2018 database. Figure 12: Share of students by language spoken at home vs. language of test % of student who speak the language of assessment at home % of students who speak another language at home 100 6 11 80 Percentage 57 47 68 60 85 81 81 100 99 99 97 94 40 89 43 53 20 32 15 19 19 0 1 1 3 Japan Hong Kong Thailand B-S-J-Z (China) Korea Malaysia Singapore Darussalam Chinese Taipei Philippines Macao (China) Indonesia (China)* Brunei Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: Hong Kong (China) did not meet the PISA technical standards but were accepted as largely comparable. School type In only three countries and economies in the EAP region—Japan, Hong Kong (China), and Chinese Taipei—did students in public schools performed better than those in private schools. Figure 13 illustrates the differences in Reading scores of students in private independent and private government schools, relative to those in public schools, after controlling for socioeconomic status. Private independent schools are those that receive less than 50 percent 17 of core funding from government agencies, whereas private dependent schools are those that receive more than 50 percent of the same. On average across the EAP, 66 percent of students attended public schools, 12 percent were enrolled in private independent schools, and 22 percent were in private dependent schools. Between the two types of private schools, students in private independent schools tended to perform better than those in private dependent schools. In Brunei Darussalam and the Philippines, students in private independent schools outperformed those in public schools by at least 60 score points in Reading. Figure 13: Difference in PISA scores in Reading by school type (independent and dependent private, relative to public) Private (independent) Private (dependent) 69 75 60 48 44 50 25 10 12 10 -1 0 -13 -25 7 6 -27 -25 -16 -24 -50 -34 -54 -75 Japan Indonesia Singapore Macao (China)* Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei Thailand Korea Malaysia B-S-J-Z China Philippines Brunei Darussalam Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: 1. Private independent schools: less than 50 percent of core funding from government agencies. Private dependent schools: more than 50 percent of core funding from government agencies. 2. The scores of private independent schools in Hong Kong (China), private dependent schools in Japan, Malaysia, and B-S-J-Z (China), and public schools in Macao (China) were dropped due to small sample size.3. *Data for Macao (China) present score-point difference relative to private dependent schools. Early childhood programs Where a comparison is possible, students who attended early childhood development (ECD) programs performed better than those who did not. The attendance in early childhood development (ECD) programs was over 95 percent for all EAP countries, except for the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, and Indonesia (see Figure 14). Of these three countries, only Indonesia and the Philippines had a representative sample size that allowed a comparison of variations in Reading performance between students who attended ECD and those who did not. Students who attended more than a year of ECD programs performed 11-18 points higher, on average, than those who did not, suggesting the role of early childhood education on students’ learning (see Figure 15). 18 Figure 14: Share of students who attended two or more years of early childhood programs 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Japan Hong Kong Thailand Malaysia B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Korea Macao Philippines Indonesia Chinese Taipei Brunei Darussalam % of students who have ECD % of students who have two years of ECD or more Source: PISA 2018 database. Figure 15: Differences in PISA scores in Reading by ECD attendance Attend more than 1 year No attendence 380 377 370 360 359 347 350 340 330 336 Indonesia Philippines Source: PISA 2018 database. 19 POLICY ACTIONS TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC RESILIENCE OF DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS This section explores several factors that might be influencing student performance, particularly that of disadvantaged students, and discusses possible policy actions that could help disadvantaged students be more academically resilient. The factors discussed here include disciplinary climate, students’ motivation, and student segregation. Other important factors such as curriculum, teacher qualifications, and textbooks are not discussed as these would require more in-depth analysis of each country’ context and are hence left for a further study. Academic resilience Despite socioeconomic disadvantages, some students are academically resilient—they can overcome their disadvantages and perform well academically.12 In eight countries in the EAP, over 10 percent of disadvantaged students at the bottom quarter13 were able to score within the top quarter of Reading performance. In Macao (China), about one in every five disadvantaged students achieved high levels of proficiency in Reading. These findings on academically resilient students indicate that socioeconomic disadvantage does not necessarily lead to poor education performance. A better disciplinary climate and high-quality teachers can help motivate socioeconomically disadvantaged students, foster their growth mindset, and help them become academically resilient. To examine factors related to academic resilience, students who participated in PISA were asked a number of questions about their parents, schools, and personal beliefs. More academically resilient students were found among those who reported receiving stronger parental support, perceived greater discipline (discussed further in succeeding sections), cooperation, and competition in their schools, and exhibited a growth mindset—the belief that one’s ability and intelligence can develop over time. Moreover, more academically resilient students than non-resilient students reported positive well-being, particularly in having a sense of belonging at school (OECD 2019b). Hence, to increase academic resilience, governments and schools can create a better disciplinary climate, help motivate students and foster their growth mindset, and provide high-quality teachers for schools concentrated with socioeconomically disadvantaged students, among others, as discussed below. Enhancing disciplinary climate Disciplinary climate accounted for 25 percent of the variation in mean Reading performance among EAP countries and economies. Figure 16 shows the disciplinary climate index, which measures the extent of classroom disruptions due to noise, disorder, and other 12 PISA defines academically resilient students as “disadvantaged students who are in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in their own country/economy but who score in the top quarter of reading in that country/economy� (OECD 2019c, p. 66). Academically resilient students are those who, in spite of socioeconomic disadvantage, are able to attain high levels of academic performance. 13 Students are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged if they fall amongst the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) within their country/economy. Data on disadvantaged students in this section are taken from the OECD’s (2019c) report on PISA 2018 results. 20 factors. In the EAP, the most positive disciplinary climates were found in Korea, B-S-J-Z (China), and Japan, while the least positive climates were observed in the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, and Malaysia. Students in countries reporting a better disciplinary climate tended to perform better in Reading. Among the items that make up the index of disciplinary climate, the one that shows the strongest association with Reading performance is the frequency of situations in which “students cannot work well�. On average across SEA developing countries, those who reported that students cannot work well in every or most lessons scored 37 points lower in Reading than those who reported that this never happened or happened only in some lessons, after accounting for socioeconomic status.14 Figure 16: Correlation between Reading scores and Disciplinary Climate Index 580 Singapore B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) PISA 2018 Score in Reading 530 Hong Kong (China) R² = 0.2498 Chinese Taipei OECD avg. Japan 480 430 Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Thailand 380 Indonesia Philippines 330 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Disciplinary Climate Index Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: Higher values on the index indicate a more positive disciplinary climate. On average across OECD countries, every unit increase in the disciplinary climate index was associated with an increase of 11 points in Reading, after accounting for socioeconomic status. In the SEA developing countries, this increase was equivalent to at least 19 score points in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam (OECD 2019d). A better disciplinary climate was also associated with more academic resilience: the proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students who scored among the top quarter of Reading was larger among those reporting a more positive disciplinary climate. On average across the OECD, the difference between the proportion of academically resilient students in the top quarter and those in the bottom quarter of the DCI was 6 percentage points. For 7 countries in the EAP (i.e., Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong (China), B-S-J-Z (China), and the Philippines), the differences in these shares were significantly larger than that of the OECD average (OED 2019c). Classrooms with a better disciplinary climate are able to provide greater teaching and learning opportunities to students. With fewer disruptions, teachers have more time to cover 14 PISA data tables by OECD (2019d) on disciplinary climate accessed at https://doi.org/10.1787/888934030895. 21 the curriculum and use diverse teaching strategies, and students are able to focus on their work more easily. A positive disciplinary climate may also have benefits for other student outcomes, including a lower prevalence of bullying in school and a stronger sense of belonging at school. Education policies can support schools by providing special assistance to schools struggling with disruptive behavior and adapt curricula to incorporate the development of positive behaviors and socioemotional skills among students. Schools also can create an environment of parental engagement and cooperation with the community, and better equip its teachers with the necessary tools to strengthen parents’ support. Beyond subject content and pedagogical practices, pre-service and professional development of teachers can incorporate targeted training on managing classroom misconduct, as well as standards on disciplinary approaches. Motivating students to master tasks Figure 17 presents the index of motivation to master tasks, which was constructed based on students’ responses to statements reflecting their desire to work hard to achieve goals (e.g., “I find satisfaction in working hard as I can�; “Once I start a task, I persist until it is finished�). In PISA 2018, motivation to master tasks and attitudes towards competition were assessed as separate components of achievement motivation. Figure 17: Correlation between Reading scores and Index of Motivation to Master Tasks 600 B-S-J-Z (China) PISA 2018 Scores in Reading 550 Hong Kong (China) Singapore Macao (China) Korea 500 Japan Chinese Taipei OECD average 450 R² = 0.0276 Brunei Malaysia 400 Darussalam Thailand Indonesia 350 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Index of Motivation to Master Tasks Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: Higher values on the index indicate higher motivation of students. In the EAP, motivation to master tasks appears to be weakly and negatively associated with Reading scores. On average across the region, students in Malaysia and Korea reported the highest levels of motivation to master tasks, while those in Japan and Hong Kong (China) reported the lowest. However, amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged students, those who score within the top quarter of Reading in their respective countries (i.e., academically resilient students) tended to report higher motivation levels than those who were not academically resilient. In the EAP, these differences were statistically significant for Korea, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand.15 15 PISA data tables by OECD (2019c) on academic resilience and well-being accessed at https://doi.org/10.1787/888934038628. 22 Concerted efforts by school leaders, teachers, and policy-makers to instill a growth mindset (e.g., by ensuring schools are well-staffed to deliver differentiated learning) may be beneficial to increasing student motivation. On average across OECD countries and in about half of PISA-participating countries and economies, students’ motivation to master tasks was positively related to having a growth mindset and teacher enthusiasm (OECD 2019d). The relationship between teacher enthusiasm and student motivation may be explained by the increased productive time on learning tasks, as enthusiastic teachers leave few opportunities for students to lose interest and misbehave. Alternatively, the relationship could be explained in the opposite direction: teachers tend to be more enthusiastic when they are in classrooms with interested students and fewer disruptions. To help foster a growth mindset in students, East Asian countries often use mastery learning, or adaptive learning, where learning is sequential and builds upon tasks that have been previously mastered. As this approach requires differentiated learning to cater to individual student needs, policy-makers should provide educators with the necessary resources and time to achieve their goals. In Finland, for instance, regular classroom teachers are provided with special teachers who help identify and support students in need of additional help. Moreover, every school has a “pupils’ multi-professional care group� consisting of the principal, special teacher, school nurse, school psychologist, social worker, and regular teachers, who meet at least twice a month to provide further assistance in early diagnosis and support to struggling learners (OECD 2019a). Supporting schools concentrated with socioeconomically disadvantaged students Though the level of student segregation appears to be only weakly correlated with student performance in Reading, it is noteworthy that segregation is high in all of the low- performing middle-income countries in the EAP. Figure 18 shows the relationship between segregation of students by socioeconomic groups in schools and scores in Reading. The higher the correlation between individual ESCS and school average ESCS, the greater the segregation (x-axis). Greater levels of segregation suggest that students in one school tend to come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. In the EAP, student segregation is highest in Thailand, Indonesia, and B-S-J-Z China, while lowest in Korea, Chinese Taipei, Brunei Darussalam, and Japan. Indeed, PISA-participating countries and economies where schools had higher levels of student segregation tended to have the strongest relationship between socioeconomic status and performance (OECD 2019c). 23 Figure 18: Student segregation into schools by socioeconomic level 600 PISA 2018 Scores in Reading 550 Singapore B-S-J-Z (China) Korea Hong Kong Japan (China) 500 Macao (China) Chinese Taipei 450 Brunei R² = 0.1474 400 Darussalam Malaysia Thailand Indonesia 350 Philippines 300 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 Student segregation index Source: PISA 2018 database. Note: The student segregation index refers to the correlation between individual and school ESCS. Student segregation is likely to strengthen the link between socioeconomic disadvantage and poor academic performance. Greater segregation by socioeconomic groups means students are less likely to interact with peers from diverse backgrounds. Limited diversity in school can exacerbate education inequity, particularly for disadvantaged students who are clustered in schools that often lack critical resources like qualified teachers. As disadvantaged students are often overrepresented among low achievers, schools with large proportions of socioeconomically disadvantaged students tend to have high concentrations of struggling learners. Being enrolled with a disproportionately large concentration of low achievers, in turn, can be detrimental to academic achievement. This may be due to factors such as reduced teaching time or teaching methods adapted to the needs of struggling learners, often at the expense of the rest of the class. Unless disadvantaged schools are provided adequate resources to compensate for their deficiencies, social segregation between schools may further widen the gaps in learning outcomes related to socioeconomic status. One way to compensate, at least partially, for disadvantage in schools is to increase the supply of high-quality teachers in these schools. PISA 2018 results show that teachers in disadvantaged schools tend to be less experienced and hold lower qualifications than those in advantaged schools (OECD 2019c). Attracting the most qualified teachers to the most challenging schools requires a holistic approach, so that teachers feel supported and recognized when they take on additional hardships. In Singapore and Japan, the best teachers are sent to work with the most struggling students and schools. In Shanghai, high-performing teachers are incentivized to teach in disadvantaged schools. Moreover, high-performing districts and schools are paired with low-performing ones to provide an avenue for their respective authorities to exchange and discuss development plans, and for teacher professional development institutes to provide training and assistance. The government also commissions high-performing public schools to take over the administration of weaker-performing ones by having an education leader from the former appointed as principal of the latter, along with a team of experienced teachers to lead in teaching. 24 REFERENCES OECD. 2010. PISA 2009 Results: Learning to Learn: Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices. Vol. III. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en. ———. 2015. The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en. ———. 2017. PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en. ———. 2019a. PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FI NAL%20PDF.pdf. ———. 2019b. PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Vol. I. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en. ———. 2019c. PISA 2018 Results: Where All Students Can Succeed. Vol. II. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en. ———. 2019d. PISA 2018 Results: What School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Vol. III. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en. 25 ANNEX I: PARTICIPATION IN PISA Table 1 summarizes participation of East Asia countries in PISA. Indonesia, Japan, and Thailand have been participating in PISA since its first round in 2000. In 2009 and 2012, Shanghai was the sole representative of mainland China in PISA. In 2015, four provinces/cities—Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong—participated. In 2018, Zhejiang replaced Guangdong. The Philippines and Brunei Darussalam participated for the first time in 2018. Though not listed here, Cambodia participated in PISA for Development 16 in 2017. Among countries in the EAP, Lao People’s Republic, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, and Pacific islands are yet to participate in the PISA assessment. Table 1: Participation of East Asia countries in PISA by year, 2000-2018 Education system 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 Brunei Darussalam � China1 � � � � Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) Indonesia � � � � � � � Japan � � � � � � � Korea Macao (China) Malaysia2 � (�) � Philippines � Singapore � � � � Thailand � � � � � � � Vietnam3 � � � (�) 1 China included Shanghai in 2009 and 2012, Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong in 2015, and Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. 2 Malaysia conducted PISA 2015 in accordance with the operational standards and guidelines of the OECD, but is indicated in ( ) because the results were considered internationally incomparable. 3 Vietnam participated in PISA 2018, but is indicated in ( ) because the results were considered internationally incomparable. 16 In 2013, the OECD and a number of partners launched the PISA for Development (PISA-D) initiative, which differentiated the data-collection instruments from the PISA to produce results that better support evidence-based policy making in middle- and low-income countries (OECD. PISA for Development. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-for- development/). The PISA-D will be integrated into the main PISA in the next round in 2021. 26 ANNEX II: COUNTRY BRIEFS Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Zhejiang (China) Brunei Darussalam Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) Indonesia Japan Korea Macao (China) Malaysia Philippines Singapore Thailand 27 28 CHINA East Asia & Pacific BEIJING-SHANGHAI-JIANGSU-GUANGDON PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • In 2009 and 2012, Shanghai was the sole representative of mainland China in PISA and demonstrated exemplary performance. In 2015, four provinces/cities—Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong—participated. In 2018, Reading Math Science Zhejiang replaced Guangdong. In total, 81% of 15-year-olds in 2009 the four provinces/cities (B-S-J-Z) were covered in 2018. 556 600 575 Shanghai • B-S-J-Z China outperformed all other PISA-participating 2012 countries by wide margins in Science and in Math. In Reading, 570 613 580 Shanghai only Singapore scored close to B-S-J-Z China. 2015 494 531 518 • Almost all (at least 95%) B-S-J-Z China students have reached B-S-J-G* at least a basic level of proficiency across each subject. About 2018 555 591 590 one-fifth have a high level of proficiency (Level 5/6) in Reading B-S-J-Z* (22%), while even more demonstrate high levels of proficiency OECD 2018 487 489 489 in Math (44%) and Science (32%). This is much higher than the OECD average (16% students achieving Level 5/6 for at EAP** 2018 472 490 487 least one subject). SEA • Socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed disadvantaged students in Reading by 91 points on average. developing*** 385 404 409 2018 • Students in urban areas performed 45 points higher than those * B-S-J-G: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangdong; in rural areas. Girls performed better than boys in Reading (by B-S-J-Z: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang. These 13 points), but boys outperformed girls in Math (by 11 points) four cities/provinces were selected from 31 Chinese and Science (by 12 points). mainland provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions, and are among the top 5 provinces and municipalities in terms of GDP per capita, and represent 13% of China mainland’s population. ** EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS *** SEA developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and • Close investment gaps for compulsory primary education, as Thailand. PISA results show that cognitive and interpersonal skills and creating thinking begin to take root early in life. Population of 15-year-olds 81% covered by PISA 2018: • Address the significant disparities in educational outcomes between rural and urban areas. More than half of China’s future labor force is currently being educated in rural areas and small towns and counties, which significantly lag behind urban READING TRENDS areas in education performance. 600 Shanghai 570 B-S-J-Z WB EDUCATION ENGAGEMENT Shanghai 540 510 FINANCING: Yunnan Early Childhood Education Innovation 480 B-S-J-G Project Guangdong Compulsory Education Project Technical and Vocational Education Projects in Xinjiang and 450 Gansu 420 ANALYTICAL: Program to support the elimination of 390 learning poverty in China 360 SOUTH-SOUTH LEARNING: China and the World in 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 Education Reforms ◆ Tripartite education partnership China OECD between China, Africa, and the World Bank EAP SEA dev. 29 CHINA East Asia & Pacific BEIJING-SHANGHAI-JIANGSU-GUANGDON PISA 2018 STUDENT PERFORMANCE EQUITY PROFILE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% 11% 14% 22% 26% 32% Top 20% 607 ESCS 75% 44% Bottom 20% 516 67% 50% 70% Location Urban 558 59% 73% 66% 53% Rural 503 25% Females 562 Gender 22% 16% 16% 0% 5% 2% 2% 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 School Type Males 549 Reading Math Science Public 553 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 Private 572 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 participate effectively and productively in life as continuing PISA 2018 Score in Reading students, workers and citizens (OECD 2017). PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool for assessing the achievement and application of key knowledge and skills among 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. ABOUT In 2018, over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics, and PISA science, with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and global competence. 30 BRUNEI East Asia & Pacific DARUSSALAM PISA 2018 OVERALL STUDENT TAKEAWAYS PERFORMANCE • Brunei Darussalam participated in PISA for the first time in PISA 2018 Scores 2018. Ninety-seven percent of the country’s 15-year- olds were covered in the PISA sample, which was the highest share in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) region. • Brunei Darussalam performed far below the level expected Reading Math Science given its income level, but above the Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries’ average by about 20 points in all Brunei 408 430 431 subject areas. OECD 487 489 489 • There are considerable performance gaps in Reading by socioeconomic status, language spoken at home, school EAP* 472 490 487 type, and immigration status. Socioeconomically advantaged (top 20%) students outperformed disadvantaged (bottom SEA 385 404 409 20%) students by 111 points (equivalent to 3 or more years of developing** schooling). Students who speak the same language at home * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. as the one used for the test outperformed those who speak a ** SEA developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, different language at home by 100 points. Students in private Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. schools scored 94 points higher than those in public schools. About 8% of the students had an immigrant background. They outperformed non-immigrants by 73 points. This is partly Population of 15-year-olds 97% because immigrants tend to be socio-economically more covered by PISA 2018: advantaged. After taking into account their socioeconomic profile, the difference reduced to around 25 points. Girls outperformed boys by 30 points and urban students STUDENT PERFORMANCE outperformed rural students by 29 points. USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS • Overall, the proficiency level in Reading is very low. A little over half (52%) of the tested students failed to demonstrate 1.3% 0.4% 9.9% 3.0% 1.7% 16.5% 2.3% 0.7% 9.6% 100% basic proficiency (Level 2) (EAP average: 31%), while only 1% of students attained Level 5 or 6 (EAP average: 10%). 38% 39% Below Level 2 performance was most likely to be observed 75% 47% 49% 52% 46% among students in the bottom 20% socioeconomically (72%), 59% 55% 64% rural students (60%), males (59%), non-immigrants (54%), 50% students speaking a different language at home from the test language (56%), and public school students (58%). 62% 59% 53% 25% 52% 48% 46% 31% 29% 26% POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 0% SEA dev. SEA dev. SEA dev. Darussalam Darussalam Darussalam EAP EAP EAP Brunei Brunei Brunei • Access to secondary education seems strong, but the low proficiency levels in all subjects, particularly reading, suggest that the government needs to focus on enhancing the quality of education, including strengthening teachers’ skills. Reading Math Science • There are many dimensions of inequity. The differences in High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 performance between public and private schools and between Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2* native (non-immigrant) and first generation immigrants are particularly striking, suggesting the need to increase * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that investment in public schools as well as in supporting students will enable them to participate effectively and from non-immigrant families. productively in life as continuing students, workers, and citizens (OECD 2017). 31 BRUNEI East Asia & Pacific DARUSSALAM PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 4.2% 0.2% 1.5% 0.2% 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 5.4% 5.9% 0.7% 0.7% 4.8% Top 20% 474 100% ESCS Bottom 20% 363 28% 40% 41% 45% 43% 41% 75% 48% Location Urban 412 53% Rural 383 70% 74% 76% 77% 50% Females 423 at home Generation Gender Males 393 72% 60% 58% 54% 56% 58% 25% 50% 45% Non-immigrant 403 25% 20% 18% Immigrant 476 18% 0% Language Same as Test 497 Private Immigrant Top 20% Public Bottom 20% Males Rural Non-immigrant Same as test Other Urban Females Other 397 Public 393 School Type Private 487 ESCS Location Gender Generation Language School at home Type 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 PISA 2018 Score in Reading Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool for assessing achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills among 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics, and science, with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and global competence. 32 C H I N E S E TA I P E I East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Chinese Taipei has participated in PISA since 2006 and exceeded the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) and OECD averages in all three subjects, particularly in Math. It Reading Math Science performed above what is expected given its income level. However, its performance in Reading dropped substantially 2006 496 549 532 between 2012 and 2015. In 2018, Reading scores increased slightly by 6 points. Ninety-two percent of 15-year-olds were 2009 495 543 520 covered in PISA sampling. 2012 523 560 523 • In 2018, 82% of students demonstrated the basic 2015 497 542 532 proficiency or above in Reading, about the same as in 2015. The share of top performers (Level 5-6) rose from 7% in 2018 503 531 516 2015 to 11% in 2018 for Reading, but dropped for Math and OECD 2018 487 489 489 Science. EAP* 2018 472 490 487 • Socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed SEA disadvantaged students in Reading by 100 points. In developing 385 404 409 Reading, girls scored higher than boys by 22 2018** points. Students who speak the same language at home as the one used for the test scored 67 points higher than those * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. ** Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries include who speak a different language at home. Students in public Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and schools scored 25 points higher than those in independent Thailand. private schools and 67 points higher than those in dependent private schools. Population of 15-year-olds 92% covered by PISA 2018: STUDENT PERFORMANCE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% READING TRENDS 7% 11% 12% 15% 28% 23% 75% 540 76% 510 71% 73% 50% 72% 63% 59% 480 25% 450 17% 18% 13% 14% 13% 15% 0% 420 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 Reading Math Science 390 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 360 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers and Chinese Taipei OECD citizens (OECD 2017). SEA dev. EAP 33 C H I N E S E TA I P E I East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% 3% 3% 3% Top 20% 555 ESCS 12% 10% 12% 13% 8% 25% Bottom 20% 455 75% at home Gender Females 514 61% 63% 65% Males 492 69% 71% 50% 74% 73% 73% Language Same as Test 513 67% Other 446 25% 32% 36% 34% 21% School Type Public 516 21% 8% 14% 14% 14% 0% Private (dependent)* 449 (dependent) (independent) Top 20% Bottom 20% Females Other Public Same as test Males Private Private Private (independent)* 491 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 PISA 2018 Score in Reading ESCS Gender Language School at home Type *Private Independent schools: less than 50% of core funding from government agencies. Private Dependent schools: more than 50% of core funding from High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 government agencies. Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence. 34 HONG KONG East Asia & Pacific (CHINA) PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Hong Kong (China) has participated in PISA since 2000. Its performance in all three subjects declined significantly between 2012 and 2015. Hong Kong's PISA 2018 scores, Reading Math Science representing about 98% of 15-year-olds, continued to decrease slightly for Reading and Science, while improved 2000 525 560 541 marginally for Math. 2003 510 550 539 • In 2018, Hong Kong’s scores exceeded the OECD average by 37 points in Reading, by 62 points in Math, and by 28 2006 536 547 542 points in Science. 2009 533 555 549 • Around 90% of students achieved the basic proficiency in three subjects: 87% in Reading, 91% in Math, and 88% in 2012 545 561 555 Science. A larger share of students in Hong Kong than the 2015 527 548 523 OECD average performed at the highest levels of proficiency (Level 5-6) in all subjects (15% in Reading, 29% in Math and 2018 524 551 517 8% in Science). OECD 2018 487 489 489 • In Reading, socioeconomically advantaged students EAP* 2018 472 490 487 outperformed disadvantaged students in Reading by 65 points. Girls scored higher than boys by 35 points. SEA Students who speak the same language at home as the one developing** 385 404 409 used for the test outperformed those who speak a different 2018 language by 28 points. Students in public schools * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. outperformed those in private schools by 28 points. Second- ** Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and generation immigrants outperformed both first-generation and Malaysia. native-born peers. STUDENT PERFORMANCE USING Population of 15-year-olds 98% covered by PISA 2018: PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% 11% 15% 7% 8% READING TRENDS 27% 29% 75% 570 540 50% 79% 73% 83% 81% 64% 62% 510 25% 480 9% 13% 9% 9% 9% 12% 450 0% 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 420 Reading Math Science High Proficiency: >= Level 5 390 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 360 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate Hong Kong (China) OECD effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers and citizens (OECD 2017). SEA dev. EAP 35 HONG KONG East Asia & Pacific (CHINA) PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% 8% 10% 15% 13% Top 20% 558 18% 12% 16% 16% ESCS 18% 21% 25% Bottom 20% 493 75% Gender Females 542 73% 71% 73% 68% Males 507 50% 74% 73% 74% 74% 75% 71% Native 529 68% Generation Second 533 25% First 502 19% 17% 11% 17% 18% 7% 8% 10% 11% 7% 8% Languag Same as Test 531 0% home Second First Top 20% Native Public Bottom 20% Females Other Same as test Private Males e at Other 503 School Public 546 Type Private 518 ESCS Gender Generation Language School 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 at home Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 PISA 2018 Score in Reading Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence. 36 INDONESIA East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Indonesia has participated in PISA since 2000. Student enrollment has grown significantly since then, especially in the last three years (16% in upper secondary). Indonesia has made a strong effort to properly represent the country’s 15-year-olds in the PISA sample Reading Math Science (85% representation in 2018, which is a huge improvement from 2003 (46%), and much higher than the Southeast Asia (SEA) 2000 371 367 393 developing countries’ average). 2003 382 360 395 • For PISA 2018, the country’s scores in Reading, Math, and Science decreased by 26 points, 7 points, and 7 points, respectively, from 2006 393 391 393 its performance in 2015. 2009 402 371 383 • Performance continued to lag behind the OECD and East Asia and Pacific (EAP) averages. Compared to the SEA developing 2012 396 375 382 countries’ average, Indonesia’s performance was lower in Reading 2015 397 386 403 (by 14 points), Math (by 25 points), and Science (by 13 points). • Only about one-third of students attained a basic to intermediate 2018 371 379 396 level of proficiency (30% Reading, 28% Math, and 40% Science). OECD 2018 487 489 489 None attained high proficiency in any subject. EAP* 2018 472 490 487 • Socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed disadvantaged ones in Reading by 57 points, which is less than the SEA OECD average. Girls scored slightly higher than boys in Reading developing** 385 404 409 (by 25 points), Math (by 10 points), and Science (by 7 points). 2018 * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. ** SEA developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. • Strengthen teacher subject matter competencies through enhanced Population of 15-year-olds 85% quality assurance at entry for all types of teachers, and improve in- service teacher training especially in literacy instruction. covered by PISA 2018: • Revise the National Education Standards to focus on measurable indicators aligned with learning, and ensure that all schools meet minimum service standards linked to increases in enrollment. READING TRENDS • Equitably deploy well-qualified teachers across regions and schools by linking financial incentives and career progression to service in 540 schools serving disadvantaged children. 510 • Ensure financing for the delivery of two years of quality early childhood education. 480 WB EDUCATION ENGAGEMENT 450 FINANCING: Research & Innovation in Science and Technology 420 Project Realizing Education’s Promise: Support to Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious Affairs for Improved Quality of Education 390 P4R: Indonesia Skills Development Project (FY21 pipeline). 360 ANALYTICAL: Indonesia Education Flagship Report Overview: The Promise of Education in Indonesia Landscape Survey of 330 EdTech in Indonesia Gender and Social Inclusion Analysis 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 Sub-national Public Expenditure Review Service Delivery Indicator and Madrasah Management Study Survey In-Service Indonesia OECD Teacher Training Capacity Assessment (MoRA) Data Reliability SEA dev. EAP Assessment of Ministry of Education and MoRA Data Systems. 37 INDONESIA East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 STUDENT PERFORMANCE EQUITY PROFILE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 100% Top 20% 406 School Type home Gender Location ESCS 30% 31% 28% Bottom 20% 349 45% 44% 40% 75% Urban 381 Rural 346 50% Females 383 Males 358 70% 69% 72% Languag 56% 60% Same as Test 374 e at 25% 55% Other 368 Public 375 0% Private (dependent)* 354 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 Private (independent)* 394 Reading Math Science ECD No Attendence 359 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 > 1 year 377 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 300 330 360 390 420 450 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students PISA 2018 Score in Reading begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to * Private Independent schools: less than 50% of core funding participate effectively and productively in life as continuing from government agencies. Private Dependent schools: more students, workers, and citizens (OECD 2017). than 50% of core funding from government agencies. PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool for assessing the achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills among 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics, and science, with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and global competence. 38 J A PA N East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Japan has been participating in PISA since 2000. Its scores in Reading, Math, and Science have fluctuated, and declined between 2012 and 2015, particularly in Reading. In Reading Math Science 2018, Japan's performance continued to decrease across all subjects. 2000 522 557 550 2003 498 534 548 • Still, Japan outperformed most participating countries and economies in 2018. Compared to the OECD average, Japan 2006 498 523 531 scored 17 points higher in Reading, 38 points higher in Math, 2009 520 529 539 and 40 points higher in Science. 2012 538 536 547 • More than 80% of students reached the basic proficiency level 2015 516 532 538 or above in Reading, Math, and Science. Ten percent of students were top performers (Level 5-6) in Readings, while 2018 504 527 529 18% and 13% were top performers in Math and Science, OECD 2018 487 489 489 respectively. EAP* 2018 472 490 487 • In 2018, socioeconomically advantaged students SEA outperformed disadvantaged students by 77 points. Girls developing** 385 404 409 performed 19 points higher than boys in Reading, which 2018 is narrower than the average gender gap across OECD countries for this subject. However, boys scored higher than * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. girls in Math by 10 points, which is wider than the average ** Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, gender gap across OECD countries. In Science, girls and and Thailand. boys performed about the same. Reading scores for students in public schools were 16 points higher than for those in private schools. *Population of 15-year-olds 91% covered by PISA 2018: STUDENT PERFORMANCE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS READING TRENDS 100% 11% 10% 15% 13% 20% 18% 570 75% 540 50% 77% 73% 70% 75% 76% 510 69% 25% 480 13% 17% 11% 450 11% 10% 11% 0% 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 420 Reading Math Science 390 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 360 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate Japan OECD effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers and SEA dev. EAP citizens (OECD 2017). 39 J A PA N East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% 3% 11% 9% 11% 9% Top 20% 539 18% ESCS 75% Bottom 20% 462 70% 70% 73% 50% 76% 74% Females 514 72% Gender Males 493 25% 28% 21% School Type Public 511 15% 19% 9% 13% 0% Top 20% Bottom Females Males Public Private Private 495 20% ESCS Gender School Type 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 PISA 2018 Score in Reading Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence. 40 KOREA East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Korea has been participating in PISA since 2000. Korea's PISA 2018 scores in Reading, Math, and Science were close to the scores in 2015, but below those in 2009 and Reading Math Science 2012. In 2018, 88% of 15-year-olds in Korea were represented by the PISA sample. 2000 525 547 552 • In 2018, students in Korea continued to outperform most 2003 534 542 538 PISA-participating countries in all three 2006 556 547 522 subjects. Compared to the OECD average, Korea scored 27 points higher in Reading, 37 points higher in Math, and 2009 539 546 538 30 points higher in Science. 2012 536 554 538 • Unchanged since 2015, 85-86% of students achieved at 2015 517 524 516 least a basic proficiency in all three subjects. Compared to 2018 514 526 519 the OECD average, a larger proportion of students in Korea OECD 2018 487 489 489 (13% in Reading, 21% in Math, and 12% in Science) performed at highest levels of proficiency (Levels 5-6). EAP* 2018 472 490 487 SEA • In Reading, socioeconomically advantaged students developing** 385 404 409 outperformed disadvantaged students by 81 points. Girls 2018 outperformed boys by 23 points in Reading, while girls and * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. boys scored similarly in Math and Science. In Reading, ** Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries include students in private independent schools scored significantly Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, higher than those in private dependent schools by 55 and Thailand. points, as well as those in public schools by 64 points. Population of 15-year-olds 88% STUDENT PERFORMANCE USING covered by PISA 2018: PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% READING TRENDS 13% 13% 11% 12% 21% 21% 570 75% 540 50% 74% 72% 75% 74% 64% 64% 510 25% 480 14% 15% 15% 15% 14% 14% 450 0% 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 420 Reading Math Science 390 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 360 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate Korea OECD effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers and SEA dev. EAP citizens (OECD 2017). 41 KOREA East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% 5% Top 20% 554 14% 12% 11% 14% ESCS 23% 30% Bottom 20% 473 75% 70% Females 526 70% 73% Gender 50% 75% 72% 71% 64% Males 503 25% Public 508 25% 19% 16% School Type 11% 14% 0% 6% 6% (dependent) (independent) Top 20% Public Bottom 20% Females Males Private (dependent)* 517 Private Private Private (independent)* 572 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 ESCS Gender School PISA 2018 Score in Reading Type High Proficiency: >= Level 5 *Private Independent schools: less than 50% of core funding from government Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 agencies. Private Dependent schools: more than 50% of core funding from government agencies. Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence. 42 MACAO (CHINA) East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Macao (China) has participated in PISA since 2003. In 2018, 88% of 15-year-olds were covered in PISA sampling. Reading Math Science • Macao's performance has continued to increase since 2009. In 2018, Macao's average scores exceeded the East 2003 498 527 525 Asia and Pacific (EAP) and OECD averages. Macao’s 2006 492 525 511 scores were higher than the EAP average by 53 points in Reading, 68 points in Math, and 57 points in Science. 2009 487 525 511 2012 509 538 521 • At least 89% of students reached the basic proficiency level 2015 509 544 529 or above in all three subjects. Compared to the OECD average, a larger proportion of students in Macao 2018 525 558 544 performed at highest levels of proficiency (Level 5-6) in OECD 2018 487 489 489 Reading (14%), Math (28%), and Science (14%). EAP* 2018 472 490 487 • In Reading, socioeconomically advantaged students SEA outperformed disadvantaged students by 38 points. developing** 385 404 409 Girls scored higher than boys by 22 points. Students who 2018 speak the same language at home as the one used for the * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. ** Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries include test scored 69 points higher than those who speak a Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, different language at home. First-generation immigrants and Thailand. outperformed their second-generation peers by 12 points and their native-born peers by 28 points. Students in independent private schools scored 56 points higher than Population of 15-year-olds 88% those in dependent private schools. covered by PISA 2018: STUDENT PERFORMANCE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS READING TRENDS 100% 7% 9% 14% 14% 22% 28% 570 75% 540 50% 82% 83% 510 75% 80% 72% 67% 480 25% 450 12% 11% 7% 5% 8% 6% 0% 420 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 Reading Math Science 390 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 360 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate effectively Macao (China) OECD and productively in life as continuing students, workers and citizens (OECD SEA dev. EAP 2017). 43 MACAO (CHINA) East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% 4% home Generation Gender ESCS Top 20% 546 10% 15% 12% 11% 14% 12% 20% 16% 16% Bottom 20% 508 32% Females 75% 536 Males 514 70% 50% 78% 75% 75% Native 512 77% 76% 76% 77% 78% 72% Second 528 65% First 540 25% Langua Same as Test 538 25% ge at 8% 13% 8% 14% 14% 10% 8% 7% 9% 3% Other 469 0% Second First (dependent) (independent) Top 20% Native Bottom 20% Females Males Other Same as test School Private (dependent)* Private 525 Type Private Private (independent)* 581 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 PISA 2018 Score in Reading ESCS Gender Generation Language School at home Type *Private Independent schools: less than 50% of core funding from government High Proficiency: >= Level 5 agencies. Private Dependent schools: more than 50% of core funding from Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 government agencies. Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence. 44 M A L AY S I A East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Malaysia participated in PISA for the first time in 2010 as part of the 2009 cycle (2009+). Since then, the country continued its participation, but due to technical issues, the results for 2015 were not considered internationally comparable. Between 2009+ and Reading Math Science 2018, scores improved by 36 points in Math and by 16 points in Science, but only by 1 point in Reading. In 2018, 72 percent of the 2009+* 414 404 422 country’s 15-year-old population was covered. 2012 398 421 420 • Malaysia performed lower than expected given its income level. 2015 431** 446** 443** The performance of Malaysian students in Reading continued to 2018 415 440 438 lag behind the average for countries in East Asia and the Pacific OECD 2018 487 489 489 (EAP) and the OECD. However, compared to the average for Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries, Malaysia scored EAP*** 2018 472 490 487 higher by 30 points in Reading, 36 points in Math, and 29 points in SEA Science. developing**** 385 404 409 • Students’ proficiency levels slightly improved for the three subjects 2018 between 2012 and 2018. The share of students who performed *** EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. below the basic level (Level 2) dropped from 53% to 46% in **** SEA developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, Reading, from 52% to 41% in Math, and from 46% and 37% in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. Science. Only a very small share (0.5-2.5%) of students attained Level 5-6 proficiency in the these subjects. Population of 15-year-olds 72% • There was a wide performance gap in Reading (102 points, covered by PISA 2018: equivalent to around 3 years of schooling) between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged students. The gap between students who speak the same language as the test READING TRENDS and those who speak a different language is also prominent (43 points). Girls outperformed boys by 26 points, and students in private schools outperformed those in public schools by 21 points. 540 The urban-rural gap is relatively small (16 points). Girls also slightly outperformed boys in Math (by 7 points) and in Science (6 points). 510 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 480 • Continue strengthening the country’s capacity to use national and international assessment data for policy analysis. 450 • Develop programs to improve access to secondary education and reduce dropouts before completing lower secondary education. 420 • Develop a program that will focus on supporting poor performers to reduce the share of students below the basic proficiency level. 390 WB EDUCATION ENGAGEMENT 360 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 Malaysia OECD FINANCING: None EAP SEA dev. ANALYTICAL: Malaysia Strengthening STEM Skills for the IR4.0 Age Technical Assistance * Malaysia participated in 2010 as part of the 2009 PISA assessment cycle. ** In Malaysia, the PISA 2015 assessment was conducted in accordance with the operational standards and guidelines of the OECD. However, the weighted response rate among the initially sampled Malaysian schools (51%) fell well short of the standard PISA response rate of 85%. Therefore, the results may not be comparable to those of other countries or to results for Malaysia from previous years. 45 M A L AY S I A East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 STUDENT PERFORMANCE EQUITY PROFILE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS 0.1% 0.5% 1.3% 2.5% 0.3% 0.6% 100% Top 20% 474 ESCS 75% 47% 47% Bottom 20% 372 54% 56% 54% 63% Location Urban 418 50% Rural 404 25% 53% 52% Gender 46% 41% 46% Females 428 37% Males 402 0% 2012 2018 2012 2018 2012 2018 Language at home Same as Test 429 Reading Math Science Other 386 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Public 414 School Type Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students Private 435 begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life as continuing 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 students, workers, and citizens (OECD 2017). PISA 2018 Score in Reading PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool for assessing the achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills among 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics, and science, with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and global competence. 46 PHILIPPINES East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 OVERALL STUDENT TAKEAWAYS PERFORMANCE • The Philippines participated in PISA for the first time in 2018. PISA 2018 Scores Only 68% of 15-year-olds were represented by the PISA sample, the lowest share in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) region. • The performance of students in the Philippines lagged behind Reading Math Science most PISA-participating countries and economies. Compared to the Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries’ average, the Philippines underperformed by 45 points in Reading, by 51 Philippines 340 353 357 points in Math, and by 52 points in Science. • In Reading and Math, 81% of students performed below the OECD 487 489 489 basic proficiency level, as did 78% in Science. These shares were the highest among all PISA-participating countries. A very EAP* 472 490 487 small share (0.1%) of students were top performers (Level 5-6) SEA across these subjects. 385 404 409 developing** • Socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. disadvantaged students in Reading by 98 points. Girls ** SEA developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, outperformed boys by 25 points, which is lower than the OECD Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. average gender gap. Students in urban schools scored 39 points higher than those in rural schools. Students speaking the Population of 15-year-olds same language at home as the one used in the test scored only 68% covered by PISA 2018: marginally higher by 3 points than those speaking a different language. Students in independent private schools outperformed those in dependent private schools by 75 points STUDENT PERFORMANCE and those in public schools by 97 points. USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS 0.1% 0.4% 9.9% 0.1% 1.7% 16.5%0.1% 0.7% 9.6% 100% POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 19% 19% 22% 38% • Strengthen programs to increase access to secondary 75% 39% 46% education and ensure that all students complete at least junior secondary education. 59% 64% 55% 50% • Strengthen teacher professional development to enhance quality and deploy qualified teachers more equitably. 81% 81% 78% 62% 59% • Develop a gender-sensitive program targeting boys such as 25% 53% classroom-based assessment, teacher pedagogical training, 31% 29% 26% and gender-sensitive materials. 0% • Strengthen the capacity to analyze national and international Philippines Philippines SEA dev. Philippines SEA dev. SEA dev. EAP EAP EAP student assessment data to make more informed decisions. WB EDUCATION ENGAGEMENT Reading Math Science FINANCING: Teacher Effectiveness and Competencies High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Enhancement Project (FY21 pipeline) Learning Equity and Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2* Accountability Program Support Project (closed in 2018) * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which ANALYTICAL: Review of basic education public expenditure and students begin to demonstrate the competencies that service delivery quality Teacher classroom observations will enable them to participate effectively and Program evaluations of the Alternative Learning System productively in life as continuing students, workers and Assessment of the labor force skills mismatches citizens (OECD 2017). 47 PHILIPPINES East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 100% ESCS Top 20% 396 4% 6% 15% 15% 16% 22% Bottom 20% 298 20% 23% 23% 19% 23% Locatio Urban 342 75% 45% home Gender n 56% Rural 303 Females 352 50% 85% 96% 94% Males 325 85% 81% 80% 84% 78% 77% 77% Langua Same as Test 343 77% ge at 25% 55% Other 340 43% Public 329 School Type Private (dependent)* 351 0% > 1 year (dependent) Top 20% No Attendance Public Bottom 20% Urban Males Other Rural Same as test Females (independent) Private (independent)* 426 Private Private No Attendance 336 ECD > 1 year 347 250 280 310 340 370 400 430 460 ESCS Location Gender Language School ECD PISA 2018 Score in Reading at home Type * Private Independent schools: less than 50% of core funding from government High Proficiency: >= Level 5 agencies. Private Dependent schools: more than 50% of core funding from Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 government agencies. Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence. 48 SINGAPORE East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Singapore has been participating in PISA since 2009. In 2015, the country outperformed all other participating countries and economies in Reading, Math, and Science. In 2018, Singapore's Reading Math Science scores in Reading improved by 14 points and in Math by 5 points. In contrast, performance in Science dropped slightly by 5 2009 526 562 542 points. Singapore's scores—which were represented by about 95% of 15-year-olds—were second to China represented by 2012 542 573 551 Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang across the three subjects. 2015 535 564 556 • Since 2009, the share of students whose performance was 2018 549 569 551 below basic proficiency has dropped significantly in all subjects. In 2018, 90% of students reached the basic proficiency level or OECD 2018 487 489 489 above in Reading, Math, and Science. EAP* 2018 472 490 487 • The share of students with the high proficiency level has increased since 2009. In 2018, Singapore had the largest share SEA of top performers (Level 5-6) in Reading (26%) among all PISA- developing 385 404 409 participating countries. 2018** • In Reading, socioeconomically advantaged students * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. outperformed disadvantaged peers by 109 points. Girls ** Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries include performed better than boys by 23 points, which is narrower than Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, the average gender gap across OECD countries. Students who and Thailand. speak the same language at home as the one used for the test scored 54 points higher than those who speak a different Population of 15-year-olds language at home. Second-generation immigrants outperformed 95% covered by PISA 2018: their first-generation and native-born peers by at least 30 points. Students in private schools scored 24 points higher than those in public schools. READING TRENDS STUDENT PERFORMANCE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS 570 100% 540 18% 26% 24% 21% 35% 37% 75% 510 50% 480 71% 63% 66% 70% 58% 56% 25% 450 11% 11% 8% 7% 10% 9% 420 0% 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 Reading Math Science 390 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 360 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate effectively Singapore OECD and productively in life as continuing students, workers and citizens (OECD SEA dev. EAP 2017). 49 SINGAPORE East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 EQUITY PROFILE USING EQUITY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS 100% Top 20% 600 ESCS 10% 17% 28% 23% 25% 27% 32% 25% 33% Bottom 20% 491 36% 75% 43% Gender Females 561 Males 538 68% 50% 67% 63% 63% 63% Native 546 63% 63% at home Generation 60% 61% 59% 52% Second 587 25% First 554 22% 16% 11% 4% 8% 14% 12% 5% 10% 7% 8% School Language 0% Same as test 573 Second First Top 20% Native Bottom 20% Females Males Public Other Private Same as test Other 519 Public 548 Type Private 572 ESCS Gender Generation Language School at home Type 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 PISA 2018 Score in Reading Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: > Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool to assess achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and on global competence. 50 THAILAND East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 TAKEAWAYS SCORES OVER TIME • Thailand has participated in PISA since 2000. In 2018, 72% of the country’s 15-year-olds were covered, below the Southeast Asia (SEA) developing countries’ average. Reading Math Science • Scores for all subjects—Reading, Math, and Science—dropped significantly between 2012 and 2015. In 2018, scores continued 2000 431 432 436 to decrease slightly for Reading, by 16 points. However, scores 2003 420 417 429 increased marginally for Math and Science, by 4 points and 5 points, respectively. 2006 417 417 421 • Compared to the average for Southeast Asia (SEA) developing 2009 421 419 425 countries, students in Thailand scored higher by 8 points in Reading, 15 points in Math, and 17 points in Science. 2012 441 427 444 • Between 2015 and 2018, the share of students who performed 2015 409 415 421 below the basic proficiency level for Reading increased by 10%, 2018 393 419 426 while the shares for Math and Science remained almost the same. In 2018, less than one-half of students attained at least a OECD 2018 487 489 489 basic level of proficiency in Reading (41%) and Math (47%), EAP* 2018 472 490 487 while only a little over one-half attained basic proficiency in Science (56%). A very small share (0.2-2.3%) of students SEA achieved the highest proficiency level in all subjects. developing** 385 404 409 2018 • There was a wide gap in Reading scores between socio- * EAP includes high-income countries in East Asia. economically advantaged and disadvantaged students (by 78%) ** SEA developing countries include Brunei Darussalam, and between urban and rural students (by 38 points). Students Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. in independent private schools outperformed those in public schools by 34 points, and those in dependent private schools by Population of 15-year-olds 72% 73 points. Girls scored higher than boys by 39 points in covered by PISA 2018: Reading, by 16 points in Math, and by 20 points in Science. READING TRENDS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 540 • Examine the PISA results in depth to identify factors contributing to the stagnating, and even deteriorating performance, and 510 develop reform programs to address the challenges. • Develop programs to improve access to secondary education 480 and reduce dropouts before completing lower secondary education. 450 • Develop programs to support poor performers and reduce the 420 share of students below the basic proficiency level in all subjects, particularly in Reading. 390 WB EDUCATION ENGAGEMENT 360 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 FINANCING: None Thailand OECD ANALYTICAL: Reimbursable Advisory Services on SEA dev. EAP Narrowing the Learning Gaps between Schools 51 THAILAND East Asia & Pacific PISA 2018 STUDENT PERFORMANCE EQUITY PROFILE USING PROFICIENCY LEVELS 0.3% 0.2% 1.4% 2.3% 0.5% 0.7% 100% Top 20% 445 ESCS 40% Bottom 20% 367 75% 50% 45% 45% 53% 55% Location Urban 398 50% Rural 360 Gender 60% Females 411 25% 50% 54% 53% 47% 44% Males 372 0% Public School Type 394 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 Reading Math Science Private (dependent)* 355 High Proficiency: >= Level 5 Private (independent)* 428 Basic - Intermediate Proficiency: >= Level 2 & < Level 5 Below Basic Proficiency: < Level 2 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 * Level 2 is the baseline level of proficiency at which students PISA 2018 Score in Reading begin to demonstrate the competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life as continuing *Private Independent schools: less than 50% of core funding from students, workers, and citizens (OECD 2017). government agencies. Private Dependent schools: more than 50% of core funding from government agencies. PISA PERFORMANCE AND GDP PER CAPITA 575 B-S-J-Z China Singapore Estonia Hong Kong (China) 525 Korea Finland Japan Sweden Ireland Poland Macao (China) Portugal Slovenia Denmark Chinese Taipei Germany PISA 2018 Score in Reading Lithuania Norway Russian Federation Latvia ItalyFrance Belgium Switzerland 475 Ukraine Croatia Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Belarus Turkey Israel Iceland Greece Slovak Republic Serbia Chile Malta Costa Rica Uruguay Cyprus United Arab Emirates 425 Colombia Moldova Mexico Jordan Brazil Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Peru Argentina Saudi Arabia North Macedonia Thailand 375 Georgia Kazakhstan Indonesia Lebanon Panama Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 325 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa GDP per Capita 2018 (or latest), PPP (constant 2011 International $), World Bank ICP PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is the OECD’s benchmarking tool for assessing the achievement and ABOUT application of key knowledge and skills among 15-year-olds. Launched in 2000, PISA is conducted every three years. In 2018, PISA over half a million 15-year-olds from 79 countries and economies took the PISA test in reading, mathematics, and science, with a focus on reading. In addition, students in some countries took tests on financial literacy and global competence. 52