100% found this document useful (1 vote)

19 views84 pages

What Makes Schools Successful Resources Policies and Practices Oecd Instant Download

The document discusses the OECD's PISA 2012 results, focusing on what makes schools successful through resources, policies, and practices. It highlights the importance of equipping citizens with necessary skills for better job opportunities and emphasizes the need for equitable resource allocation in education. The findings indicate significant performance disparities among countries and within countries, as well as gender differences in attitudes towards mathematics.

Uploaded by

lggsjxu153

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (1 vote)

19 views84 pages

What Makes Schools Successful Resources Policies and Practices Oecd Instant Download

Uploaded by

lggsjxu153

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 84

What Makes Schools Successful Resources Policies

And Practices Oecd download

https://ebookbell.com/product/what-makes-schools-successful-
resources-policies-and-practices-oecd-6768810

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Pisa 2009 Results Vol 4 What Makes A School Successful Resources

Policies And Practices Oecd

https://ebookbell.com/product/pisa-2009-results-vol-4-what-makes-a-
school-successful-resources-policies-and-practices-oecd-6770620

Good Health At Low Cost 25 Years On What Makes A Successful Health

System Edited By Dina Balabanova

https://ebookbell.com/product/good-health-at-low-cost-25-years-on-
what-makes-a-successful-health-system-edited-by-dina-
balabanova-50045328

What Makes School Systems Perform Seeing School Systems Through The
Prism Of Pisa Oecd

https://ebookbell.com/product/what-makes-school-systems-perform-
seeing-school-systems-through-the-prism-of-pisa-oecd-6781382

What Makes A Worldclass School And How We Can Get There 1st Edition
James H Stronge

https://ebookbell.com/product/what-makes-a-worldclass-school-and-how-
we-can-get-there-1st-edition-james-h-stronge-44533250
What Makes A Good Primary School Teacher Expert Classroom Strategies
1st Edition C V Gipps Bet Mccallum Eleanore Hargreaves

https://ebookbell.com/product/what-makes-a-good-primary-school-
teacher-expert-classroom-strategies-1st-edition-c-v-gipps-bet-
mccallum-eleanore-hargreaves-4687788

What High Schools Dont Tell You 300 Secrets To Make Your Kid
Irresistible To Colleges By Senior Year Elizabeth Wissnergross

https://ebookbell.com/product/what-high-schools-dont-tell-
you-300-secrets-to-make-your-kid-irresistible-to-colleges-by-senior-
year-elizabeth-wissnergross-47127572

School For Dukes What A Difference A Duke Makes 2018 Bell

https://ebookbell.com/product/school-for-dukes-what-a-difference-a-
duke-makes-2018-bell-23793838

Doing What Matters How To Get Results That Make A Differencethe

Revolutionary Oldschool Approach James M Kilts

https://ebookbell.com/product/doing-what-matters-how-to-get-results-
that-make-a-differencethe-revolutionary-oldschool-approach-james-m-
kilts-46335122

101 Ways To Make Studying Easier And Faster For High School Students
What Every Student Needs To Know Explained Simply 1st Edition Janet
Engle

https://ebookbell.com/product/101-ways-to-make-studying-easier-and-
faster-for-high-school-students-what-every-student-needs-to-know-
explained-simply-1st-edition-janet-engle-47101242
PISA 2012 Results:
What Makes Schools
Successful?
Resources, Policies and Practices
Volume IV

Pr ogr am m e f or Int er nat ional St udent A s s es s m ent

PISA 2012 Results:
What Makes Schools
Successful?

Resources, Policies and Practices

(Volume IV)
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions
expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of
the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or
sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries
and to the name of any territory, city or area.

Please cite this publication as:

OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices
(Volume IV), PISA, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en

ISBN 978-92-64-20114-9 (print)

ISBN 978-92-64-20115-6 (PDF)

Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island.
There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the
United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is
recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document
relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use
of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements
in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Photo credits:
© Flying Colours Ltd /Getty Images
© Jacobs Stock Photography /Kzenon
© khoa vu /Flickr /Getty Images
© Mel Curtis /Corbis
© Shutterstock /Kzenon
© Simon Jarratt /Corbis

Revised version, February 2014

Details of revisions available at:
http://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/Corrigendum-PISA-2012-Results-VolumeIV.pdf
© OECD 2013

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases
and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights
should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use
shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit
de copie (CFC) at [email protected].
Foreword

Equipping citizens with the skills necessary to achieve their full potential, participate in an increasingly interconnected
global economy, and ultimately convert better jobs into better lives is a central preoccupation of policy makers
around the world. Results from the OECD’s recent Survey of Adult Skills show that highly skilled adults are twice as likely
to be employed and almost three times more likely to earn an above-median salary than poorly skilled adults. In other
words, poor skills severely limit people’s access to better-paying and more rewarding jobs. Highly skilled people are also
more likely to volunteer, see themselves as actors rather than as objects of political processes, and are more likely to trust
others. Fairness, integrity and inclusiveness in public policy thus all hinge on the skills of citizens.

The ongoing economic crisis has only increased the urgency of investing in the acquisition and development of
citizens’ skills – both through the education system and in the workplace. At a time when public budgets are tight and
there is little room for further monetary and fiscal stimulus, investing in structural reforms to boost productivity, such as
education and skills development, is key to future growth. Indeed, investment in these areas is essential to support the
recovery, as well as to address long-standing issues such as youth unemployment and gender inequality.

In this context, more and more countries are looking beyond their own borders for evidence of the most successful
and efficient policies and practices. Indeed, in a global economy, success is no longer measured against national
standards alone, but against the best-performing and most rapidly improving education systems. Over the past decade,
the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, has become the world’s premier yardstick for
evaluating the quality, equity and efficiency of school systems. But the evidence base that PISA has produced goes well
beyond statistical benchmarking. By identifying the characteristics of high-performing education systems PISA allows
governments and educators to identify effective policies that they can then adapt to their local contexts.

The results from the PISA 2012 assessment, which was conducted at a time when many of the 65 participating
countries and economies were grappling with the effects of the crisis, reveal wide differences in education outcomes,
both within and across countries. Using the data collected in previous PISA rounds, we have been able to track the
evolution of student performance over time and across subjects. Of the 64 countries and economies with comparable
data, 40 improved their average performance in at least one subject. Top performers such as Shanghai in China or
Singapore were able to further extend their lead, while countries like Brazil, Mexico, Tunisia and Turkey achieved major
improvements from previously low levels of performance.

Some education systems have demonstrated that it is possible to secure strong and equitable learning outcomes at
the same time as achieving rapid improvements. Of the 13 countries and economies that significantly improved their
mathematics performance between 2003 and 2012, three also show improvements in equity in education during the
same period, and another nine improved their performance while maintaining an already high level of equity – proving
that countries do not have to sacrifice high performance to achieve equity in education opportunities.

Nonetheless, PISA 2012 results show wide differences between countries in mathematics performance. The
equivalent of almost six years of schooling, 245 score points, separates the highest and lowest average performances

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 3
Foreword

of the countries that took part in the PISA 2012 mathematics assessment. The difference in mathematics performances
within countries is even greater, with over 300 points – the equivalent of more than seven years of schooling – often
separating the highest- and the lowest-achieving students in a country. Clearly, all countries and economies have
excellent students, but few have enabled all students to excel.

The report also reveals worrying gender differences in students’ attitudes towards mathematics: even when girls
perform as well as boys in mathematics, they report less perseverance, less motivation to learn mathematics, less belief
in their own mathematics skills, and higher levels of anxiety about mathematics. While the average girl underperforms in
mathematics compared with the average boy, the gender gap in favour of boys is even wider among the highest-achieving
students. These findings have serious implications not only for higher education, where young women are already under-
represented in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields of study, but also later on, when these young
women enter the labour market. This confirms the findings of the OECD Gender Strategy, which identifies some of the
factors that create – and widen – the gender gap in education, labour and entrepreneurship. Supporting girls’ positive
attitudes towards and investment in learning mathematics will go a long way towards narrowing this gap.

PISA 2012 also finds that the highest-performing school systems are those that allocate educational resources
more equitably among advantaged and disadvantaged schools and that grant more autonomy over curricula and
assessments to individual schools. A belief that all students can achieve at a high level and a willingness to engage
all stakeholders in education – including students, through such channels as seeking student feedback on teaching
practices – are hallmarks of successful school systems.

PISA is not only an accurate indicator of students’ abilities to participate fully in society after compulsory school,
but also a powerful tool that countries and economies can use to fine-tune their education policies. There is no single
combination of policies and practices that will work for everyone, everywhere. Every country has room for improvement,
even the top performers. That’s why the OECD produces this triennial report on the state of education across the globe:
to share evidence of the best policies and practices and to offer our timely and targeted support to help countries
provide the best education possible for all of their students. With high levels of youth unemployment, rising inequality,
a significant gender gap, and an urgent need to boost growth in many countries, we have no time to lose. The OECD
stands ready to support policy makers in this challenging and crucial endeavour.

Angel Gurría
OECD Secretary-General

4 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Acknowledgements

This report is the product of a collaborative effort between the countries participating in PISA, the experts and
institutions working within the framework of the PISA Consortium, and the OECD Secretariat. The report was drafted by
Andreas Schleicher, Francesco Avvisati, Francesca Borgonovi, Miyako Ikeda, Hiromichi Katayama, Flore-Anne Messy,
Chiara Monticone, Guillermo Montt, Sophie Vayssettes and Pablo Zoido of the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills
and the Directorate for Financial Affairs, with statistical support from Simone Bloem and Giannina Rech and editorial
oversight by Marilyn Achiron. Additional analytical and editorial support was provided by Adele Atkinson, Jonas Bertling,
Marika Boiron, Célia Braga-Schich, Tracey Burns, Michael Davidson, Cassandra Davis, Elizabeth Del Bourgo,
John A. Dossey, Joachim Funke, Samuel Greiff, Tue Halgreen, Ben Jensen, Eckhard Klieme, André Laboul, Henry Levin,
Juliette Mendelovits, Tadakazu Miki, Christian Monseur, Simon Normandeau, Mathilde Overduin, Elodie Pools,
Dara Ramalingam, William H. Schmidt (whose work was supported by the Thomas J. Alexander fellowship programme),
Kaye Stacey, Lazar Stankov, Ross Turner, Elisabeth Villoutreix and Allan Wigfield. The system‑level data collection was
conducted by the OECD NESLI (INES Network for the Collection and Adjudication of System-Level Descriptive
Information on Educational Structures, Policies and Practices) team: Bonifacio Agapin, Estelle Herbaut and Jean Yip.
Volume II also draws on the analytic work undertaken by Jaap Scheerens and Douglas Willms in the context of PISA 2000.
Administrative support was provided by Claire Chetcuti, Juliet Evans, Jennah Huxley and Diana Tramontano.

The OECD contracted the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) to manage the development of the
mathematics, problem solving and financial literacy frameworks for PISA 2012. Achieve was also contracted by the OECD
to develop the mathematics framework with ACER. The expert group that guided the preparation of the mathematics
assessment framework and instruments was chaired by Kaye Stacey; Joachim Funke chaired the expert group that
guided the preparation of the problem-solving assessment framework and instruments; and Annamaria Lusardi led
the expert group that guided the preparation of the financial literacy assessment framework and instruments. The PISA
assessment instruments and the data underlying the report were prepared by the PISA Consortium, under the direction
of Raymond Adams at ACER.

The development of the report was steered by the PISA Governing Board, which is chaired by Lorna Bertrand
(United Kingdom), with Benő Csapó (Hungary), Daniel McGrath (United States) and Ryo Watanabe (Japan) as vice chairs.
Annex C of the volumes lists the members of the various PISA bodies, as well as the individual experts and consultants
who have contributed to this report and to PISA in general.

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 5
Table of Contents

Executive Summary�� 17

Reader’s Guide�� 19

What is PISA?�� 21

CHAPTER 1 How Resources, Policies and Practices are Related to Education Outcomes�� 27
Performance differences among school systems, schools and students�� 29
Measuring the success of school systems�� 31
How learning outcomes are related to the ways in which school systems select and group students�� 33
• Vertical stratification�� 34
• Horizontal stratification�� 36
• Trends in the relationship between mathematics performance and stratification�� 38
How learning outcomes are related to systems’ resource allocation �� 40
• Financial resources�� 40
• Human resources�� 43
• Material resources�� 43
• Time resources�� 43
• Trends in the relationship between mathematics performance and educational resources�� 45
How learning outcomes are related to the governance of education systems�� 50
• School autonomy�� 50
• School competition�� 54
• Public and private stakeholders�� 54
• Assessment and accountability�� 57
• Trends in the relationship between mathematics performance and school governance �� 59
How learning outcomes are related to systems’ learning environments�� 60
• Student truancy�� 60
• School climate�� 62
• Trends in the relationship between mathematics performance and the learning environment�� 62
How the features of schools and school systems are interrelated �� 63

CHAPTER 2 Selecting and Grouping Students�� 71

How students progress through the school system �� 73
• Students’ ages at entry into the school system �� 73
• Grade repetition�� 73
• Students’ grade and education levels�� 75
How education systems organise school programmes �� 76
• The number of study programmes and age of selection�� 76
• School transferring policies�� 80
• Ability grouping within schools �� 80
Social and academic inclusion and vertical and horizontal stratification�� 83

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 7
Table of contents

How systems’ grouping and selecting of students is related to students’ instrumental motivation �� 86
Trends in stratification since PISA 2003�� 88
• Grade repetition�� 88
• Ability grouping within schools�� 89

CHAPTER 3 Resources Invested in Education�� 93

Financial resources �� 95
• Expenditure on education �� 95
• Teachers’ salaries �� 95
Human resources�� 96
• Pre-service teacher training �� 96
• Requirements to enter the teaching profession�� 98
• Teacher profile and qualifications�� 98
• Student-teacher ratio�� 100
• Teacher shortages�� 100
• Teachers’ professional development�� 103
Material resources �� 103
• Physical infrastructure and educational resources �� 105
Time resources �� 109
• Intended learning time in school�� 110
• Students’ learning time in regular school lessons�� 110
• Class size �� 112
• Students’ learning time in after-school lessons �� 112
• Extracurricular activities �� 116
• Students’ attendance at pre-primary school �� 116
Trends in resources invested in education since PISA 2003�� 117

CHAPTER 4 School Governance, Assessments and Accountability �� 127

Governance of school systems�� 129
• School autonomy�� 129
• School choice �� 133
• Public and private involvement �� 138
• Management and leadership by principals�� 139
• Parental involvement �� 141
Trends in governance of school systems since PISA 2003�� 144
Assessment and accountability �� 147
• Assessments and examinations�� 147
• Assessment practices and purposes �� 148
• The use of achievement data beyond school�� 152
• Quality assurance�� 152
• Monitoring mathematics teachers’ practices�� 155
• The consequences of teacher appraisals �� 155
Trends in assessment and accountability policies since PISA 2003�� 159

CHAPTER 5 How the Quality of the Learning Environment is Shaped�� 165

Student truancy �� 166
• Arriving late for school�� 167
• Skipping school�� 167

8 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Table of contents

School climate �� 169

• Teacher-student relations�� 169
• Disciplinary climate �� 171
• Student- and teacher-related factors affecting school climate �� 173
• Teacher morale �� 177
Inter-relationships among learning-environment indicators at the school level�� 180
Student and school features related to the likelihood of students arriving late for school�� 183
Trends in school climate and student truancy since PISA 2003�� 183

CHAPTER 6 Policy Implications of School Management and Practices�� 189

ANNEX A PISA 2012 Technical background�� 195

Annex A1 Construction of mathematics scales and indices from the student, school and parent context questionnaires�� 196
Annex A2 The PISA target population, the PISA samples and the definition of schools�� 209
Annex A3 Technical notes on analyses in this volume�� 221
Annex A4 Quality assurance�� 225
Annex A5 Technical details of trends analyses�� 226
Annex A6 Anchoring vignettes in the PISA 2012 student questionnaire�� 229

ANNEX B PISA 2012 Data�� 231

Annex B1 Results for countries and economies�� 232
Annex B2 Results for regions within countries�� 477
Annex B3 List of tables available on line�� 535

ANNEX C THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PISA – A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT�� 537

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 9
Table of contents

BOXES

A test the whole world can take�� 21

Key features of PISA 2012�� 23

Box IV.1.1. Interpreting the data from students, parents and schools�� 30
Box IV.1.2. How PISA examines resources, policies, practices and education outcomes�� 32
Box IV.1.3. Trends in the relationship between resources, policies and practices and mathematics performance�� 39
Box IV.1.4. Improving in PISA: Israel�� 48
Box IV.1.5. How to interpret the figures�� 63

Box IV.2.1. Improving in PISA: Poland�� 81

Box IV.2.2. PISA index of instrumental motivation �� 86

Box IV.3.1. Socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged schools�� 98

Box IV.3.2. Improving in PISA: Tunisia�� 108
Box IV.3.3. Comparing PISA scale indices between 2003 and 2012�� 117

Box IV.4.1. School autonomy and collaboration among schools�� 130

Box IV.4.2. Improving equity in Belgium’s (French community) enrolment system �� 133
Box IV.4.3. Improving in PISA: Colombia�� 145
Box IV.4.4. Teachers’ perceptions of the consequences of appraisals: results from the first TALIS survey�� 158

FIGURES
Map of PISA countries and economies�� 22

Figure IV.1.1 Structure of Volume IV�� 28

Figure IV.1.2 Variation in mathematics performance between systems, schools and students�� 29
Figure IV.1.3 Student performance and equity�� 32
Figure IV.1.4 Grade repetition and equity�� 35
Figure IV.1.5 Cost of grade repetition�� 36
Figure IV.1.6 School admissions policies and mathematics performance�� 37
Figure IV.1.7 Change between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 in the relationship between grade repetition
and mathematics performance�� 38
Figure IV.1.8 Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and mathematics performance in PISA 2012�� 41
Figure IV.1.9 Change between 2003 and 2012 in average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15
and change in mathematics performance�� 41
Figure IV.1.10 Teachers’ salaries and mathematics performance�� 42
Figure IV.1.11 Systems’ allocation of educational resources and mathematics performance�� 44
Figure IV.1.12 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the relationship between students’ mathematics performance
and student-teacher ratios in their schools�� 46
Figure IV.1.13 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the relationship between students’ mathematics performance
and their attendance in pre-primary school�� 47
Figure IV.1.14 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the relationship between students’ socio-economic status
and their attendance at pre-primary school�� 48
Figure IV.1.15 School autonomy over curriculum and assessment and mathematics performance�� 51
Figure IV.1.16 School autonomy and mathematics performance, by system-level accountability features�� 52
Figure IV.1.17 School autonomy and mathematics performance, by system-level teacher participation
in school management�� 53
Figure IV.1.18 School competition and mathematics performance�� 55

10 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Table of contents

Figure IV.1.19 School type and mathematics performance�� 56

Figure IV.1.20 Written feedback from students and equity�� 58
Figure IV.1.21 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the relationship between students’ mathematics performance
and their attendance in private or public schools, after accounting for socio-economic status�� 60
Figure IV.1.22 Students skipping school and mathematics performance�� 61
Figure IV.1.23 Relationship between selected policy, practice and resource indicators�� 64
Figure IV.1.24 How school characteristics are related to mathematics performance �� 65

Figure IV.2.1 Selecting and grouping students as covered in PISA 2012�� 72

Figure IV.2.2 How students are grouped in a school system (vertical stratification)�� 74
Figure IV.2.3 Probability of students having repeated a grade, by students’ socio-economic status (OECD average)�� 75
Figure IV.2.4 How students are grouped across and within schools (horizontal stratification)�� 78
Figure IV.2.5 School admissions policies�� 80
Figure IV.2.6 System-level correlation between indicators of stratification�� 84
Figure IV.2.7 Vertical and horizontal stratification�� 85
Figure IV.2.8 System-level correlation between indices of stratification and student characteristics�� 86
Figure IV.2.9 Students’ motivation and horizontal stratification�� 87
Figure IV.2.10 Change between 2003 and 2012 in grade repetition rates�� 89
Figure IV.2.11 Change between 2003 and 2012 in ability grouping�� 90

Figure IV.3.1 Resources invested in education as covered in PISA 2012�� 94

Figure IV.3.2 Expenditure on education and teachers’ salaries�� 96
Figure IV.3.3 Profiles of teacher pre-service training across countries and economies�� 97
Figure IV.3.4 Teachers’ profiles and qualifications�� 99
Figure IV.3.5 Impact of teacher shortage on instruction, school principals’ views�� 101
Figure IV.3.6 Continuing education necessary to remain employed as a teacher�� 102
Figure IV.3.7 School principals’ views on adequacy of physical infrastructure�� 104
Figure IV.3.8 School principals’ views on adequacy of educational resources�� 106
Figure IV.3.9 Equity in allocation of educational resources�� 107
Figure IV.3.10 Student learning time in school and after school�� 111
Figure IV.3.11 Attendance in after-school lessons�� 113
Figure IV.3.12 Extracurricular activities�� 115
Figure IV.3.13 Change between 2003 and 2012 in average student-teacher ratios�� 118
Figure IV.3.14 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the index of quality of schools’ educational resources (e.g. textbooks)�� 119
Figure IV.3.15 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the average time spent in mathematics lessons in school�� 120
Figure IV.3.16 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the average time spent doing homework�� 121

Figure IV.4.1 Governance, assessment and accountability as covered in PISA 2012�� 128
Figure IV.4.2 School autonomy over resource allocation�� 131
Figure IV.4.3 School autonomy over curricula and assessments�� 132
Figure IV.4.4 School competition and school policy on catchment area�� 135
Figure IV.4.5 Parents’ reports on criteria used to choose schools for their child, by students’ socio‑economic status�� 136
Figure IV.4.6 Principals’ views on teacher participation in school management�� 140
Figure IV.4.7 Parental involvement�� 142
Figure IV.4.8 Relationship among various aspects of parental involvement�� 143
Figure IV.4.9 Change between 2003 and 2012 in public school enrolments�� 144

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 11
Table of contents

Figure IV.4.10 Profiles of assessments and examinations across countries and economies�� 148

Figure IV.4.11 Use of assessment practices�� 149

Figure IV.4.12 Relationship among various aspects of assessment practices and purposes�� 150

Figure IV.4.13 Use of achievement data for accountability purposes�� 151

Figure IV.4.14 Quality assurance and school improvement�� 153

Figure IV.4.15 Internal or external evaluations and feedback from students�� 154

Figure IV.4.16 Monitoring mathematics teachers’ practice�� 156

Figure IV.4.17 Consequences of teacher appraisals�� 157

Figure IV.4.18 Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student assessment data to compare school performance�� 160

Figure IV.4.19 Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student assessment data to monitor teachers�� 161

Figure IV.5.1 The learning environment as covered in PISA 2012�� 166

Figure IV.5.2 Students arriving late for school�� 168

Figure IV.5.3 Students’ views of teacher-student relations�� 170

Figure IV.5.4 Students’ views of how conducive classrooms are to learning�� 172

Figure IV.5.5 School principals’ views of how student behaviour affects learning�� 174

Figure IV.5.6 Student truancy reported by students and principals�� 176

Figure IV.5.7 School principals’ views of how teacher behaviour affects learning�� 178

Figure IV.5.8 Schools’ principals views of teacher morale�� 179

Figure IV.5.9 Relationship between student truancy and school climate�� 181

Figure IV.5.10 Relationship between disciplinary climate and various school features�� 182

Figure IV.5.11a Students arriving late for school, by gender�� 184

Figure IV.5.11b Students arriving late for school, by students with and without immigrant backgrounds�� 185

Figure IV.5.12 Change between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 in teacher-student relations�� 186

Figure IV.5.13 Change between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 in disciplinary climate�� 186

Figure A3.1 Labels used in a two-way table�� 221

TABLES

Table A1.1 Levels of parental education converted into years of schooling............................................................................................................... 199
Table A1.2 A multilevel model to estimate grade effects in mathematics accounting for some background variables................................ 201
Table A1.3 Student questionnaire rotation design............................................................................................................................................................... 204

Table A2.1 PISA target populations and samples................................................................................................................................................................. 211

Table A2.2 Exclusions.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 213
Table A2.3 Response rates.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 215
Table A2.4a Percentage of students at each grade level...................................................................................................................................................... 218
Table A2.4b Percentage of students at each grade level, by gender................................................................................................................................ 219

Table A5.1 Link error for comparisons of performance between PISA 2012 and previous assessments............................................................ 227

Table IV.1.1 Relationship between education outcomes and selecting and grouping students............................................................................... 232
Table IV.1.2 Relationship between education outcomes and resources invested in education.............................................................................. 233
Table IV.1.3 Relationship between education outcomes and allocation of resources............................................................................................... 234
Table IV.1.4 Relationship between education outcomes and school governance, assessment and accountability policies......................... 235

12 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Table of contents

Table IV.1.5 Relationship between education outcomes and the learning environment.......................................................................................... 236
Table IV.1.6 Cost of grade repetition......................................................................................................................................................................................... 237
Table IV.1.12a Variation in mathematics performance and variation explained by school characteristics combined......................................... 238
Table IV.1.12b Relationship between mathematics performance and the school’s learning environment, resources,
policies and practices............................................................................................................................................................................................. 240
Table IV.1.12c Relationship among mathematics performance, the school’s learning environment, resources, policies
and practices, and student and school characteristics................................................................................................................................. 244
Table IV.1.13 School autonomy and performance, by system’s extent of posting achievement data publicly..................................................... 249
Table IV.1.14 School autonomy and performance, by system’s extent of implementing a standardised policy.................................................. 249
Table IV.1.15 School autonomy and performance, by system’s extent of teachers participating in school management................................. 249
Table IV.1.16 Mathematics performance and school choice............................................................................................................................................... 250
Table IV.1.17 Mathematics performance and use of achievement data for accountability purposes...................................................................... 251
Table IV.1.18 Mathematics performance and quality assurance and school improvement........................................................................................ 252
Table IV.1.21 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and age at which students start primary school.................... 257
Table IV.1.23 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and students’ grade level............................................................. 261
Table IV.1.24 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and ability grouping in mathematics classes......................... 264
Table IV.1.25 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and student-teacher ratio............................................................. 265
Table IV.1.26 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and students’ learning time at school...................................... 266
Table IV.1.27 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and pre-school attendance.......................................................... 267
Table IV.1.28 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and arriving late for school......................................................... 270
Table IV.1.29 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance and concentration of students arriving late for school........ 273

Table IV.2.1 Primary school starting age................................................................................................................................................................................... 276

Table IV.2.2 Grade repetition....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 277
Table IV.2.3 Relationship between grade repetition and students’ socio-economic status...................................................................................... 278
Table IV.2.4 Student grade level.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 279
Table IV.2.5 Horizontal stratification of school systems...................................................................................................................................................... 280
Table IV.2.6 Programme orientation.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 281
Table IV.2.7 School admission policies.................................................................................................................................................................................... 282
Table IV.2.8 School admissions policies, by level of education........................................................................................................................................ 284
Table IV.2.9 School transfer policies.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 287
Table IV.2.10 School transfer policies, by level of education............................................................................................................................................... 289
Table IV.2.11 Ability grouping for mathematics classes......................................................................................................................................................... 292
Table IV.2.14 Correlation between stratification and students’ motivation...................................................................................................................... 294
Table IV.2.16 Stratification, variation in socio-economic status and performance, and students’ motivation...................................................... 296
Table IV.2.17 Change between 2003 and 2012 in primary school starting age............................................................................................................. 297
Table IV.2.18 Change between 2003 and 2012 in grade repetition.................................................................................................................................. 300
Table IV.2.19 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the concentration of grade repetition.......................................................................................... 303
Table IV.2.20 Change between 2003 and 2012 in student grade level............................................................................................................................ 304
Table IV.2.21 Change between 2003 and 2012 in ability grouping for mathematics classes.................................................................................... 307

Table IV.3.1 Cumulative expenditure by educational institutions..................................................................................................................................... 313

Table IV.3.2 Per capita GDP......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 314
Table IV.3.3 Teachers’ salaries..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 315
Table IV.3.4 Pre-service teacher training requirements in public institutions............................................................................................................... 316
Table IV.3.5 Requirements to enter the teaching profession, public institutions ........................................................................................................ 318

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 13
Table of contents

Table IV.3.6 Composition and qualifications of teaching staff.......................................................................................................................................... 320

Table IV.3.8 Student-teacher ratio.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 321
Table IV.3.9 Student-teacher ratio, by school features......................................................................................................................................................... 322
Table IV.3.10 Index of teacher shortage and mathematics performance.......................................................................................................................... 326
Table IV.3.11 Index of teacher shortage, by school features................................................................................................................................................. 328
Table IV.3.12 Teacher professional development..................................................................................................................................................................... 330
Table IV.3.13 Teacher professional development, by school features............................................................................................................................... 331
Table IV.3.14 Index of quality of physical infrastructure and mathematics performance............................................................................................ 333
Table IV.3.15 Index of quality of physical infrastructure, by school features.................................................................................................................. 335
Table IV.3.16 Index of quality of schools’ educational resources and mathematics performance........................................................................... 337
Table IV.3.17 Index of quality of schools’ educational resources, by school features.................................................................................................. 339
Table IV.3.18 Availability of computers at school.................................................................................................................................................................... 341
Table IV.3.19 Instructional use of Internet.................................................................................................................................................................................. 342
Table IV.3.20 Compulsory and intended instruction time, by age...................................................................................................................................... 343
Table IV.3.21 Students’ learning time in school....................................................................................................................................................................... 344
Table IV.3.22 Students’ learning time in school, by school features.................................................................................................................................. 345
Table IV.3.25 Percentage of students attending after-school lessons, by hours per week........................................................................................... 355
Table IV.3.27 Hours of after-school study time per week...................................................................................................................................................... 356
Table IV.3.29 Additional mathematics lessons at school....................................................................................................................................................... 357
Table IV.3.30 Extracurricular activities at school...................................................................................................................................................................... 358
Table IV.3.31 Index of creative extracurricular activities at school and mathematics performance........................................................................ 359
Table IV.3.32 Index of extracurricular mathematics activities at school and mathematics performance............................................................... 361
Table IV.3.33 Pre-school attendance............................................................................................................................................................................................ 363
Table IV.3.34 Pre-school attendance, by school features...................................................................................................................................................... 364
Table IV.3.35 Change between 2003 and 2012 in student-teacher ratio......................................................................................................................... 366
Table IV.3.37 Change between 2003 and 2012 in teacher shortage................................................................................................................................. 367
Table IV.3.40 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the quality of physical infrastructure............................................................................................ 368
Table IV.3.43 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the quality of schools’ educational resources........................................................................... 369
Table IV.3.46 Change between 2003 and 2012 in students’ learning time in school.................................................................................................. 372
Table IV.3.48 Change between 2003 and 2012 in hours of after-school study time per week................................................................................. 373
Table IV.3.50 Change between 2003 and 2012 in pre-school attendance...................................................................................................................... 374
Table IV.3.51 Change between 2003 and 2012 in years in pre-school, by school features....................................................................................... 375

Table IV.4.1 Index of school responsibility for resource allocation and mathematics performance...................................................................... 381
Table IV.4.2 School responsibility for resource allocation, curriculum and assessment, by type of school and education level................ 383
Table IV.4.3 Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment and mathematics performance...................................................... 384
Table IV.4.4 School choice........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 386
Table IV.4.5 School choice, by level of education................................................................................................................................................................ 387
Table IV.4.6 School admissions policies and school competition.................................................................................................................................... 388
Table IV.4.7 School type and performance in mathematics, reading and science .................................................................................................... 389
Table IV.4.8 School management and leadership ................................................................................................................................................................ 391
Table IV.4.9 School competition reported by principals and parents ............................................................................................................................ 398
Table IV.4.10 Parents’ reports on their criteria for choosing schools for their children .............................................................................................. 399
Table IV.4.11 Parents’ reports on their criteria for choosing schools for their children, by socio‑economic status of students ..................... 400
Table IV.4.12 Index of school management: Teacher participation and mathematics performance........................................................................ 401

14 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Table of contents

Table IV.4.16 Correlation between indices of school management................................................................................................................................... 403

Table IV.4.17 Parental involvement ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 404

Table IV.4.18 Parents’ expectations of high academic performance.................................................................................................................................. 405

Table IV.4.19 Change between 2003 and 2012 in school type and performance in mathematics.......................................................................... 406

Table IV.4.20 National assessments at the lower secondary level ..................................................................................................................................... 412

Table IV.4.21 National assessments at the upper secondary level...................................................................................................................................... 412

Table IV.4.22 National examinations at the lower secondary level .................................................................................................................................. 413

Table IV.4.23 National examinations at the upper secondary level................................................................................................................................... 415

Table IV.4.24 Other (non-national) standardised examinations administered in multiple lower secondary schools ........................................ 417

Table IV.4.25 Other (non-national) standardised examinations administered in multiple upper secondary schools ....................................... 419

Table IV.4.26 Entrance examinations to enter the first stage of tertiary education........................................................................................................ 421

Table IV.4.27 Factors, criteria or special circumstances used by tertiary institutions to determine admission..................................................... 423

Table IV.4.30 Assessment practices ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 425

Table IV.4.31 Use of achievement data for accountability purposes ................................................................................................................................ 427

Table IV.4.32 Quality assurance and school improvement ................................................................................................................................................. 428

Table IV.4.33 Internal or external evaluations and feedback from students ................................................................................................................... 429

Table IV.4.34 Monitoring mathematics teachers’ practice ................................................................................................................................................... 430

Table IV.4.35 Consequences of teacher appraisals ................................................................................................................................................................ 431

Table IV.4.36 Change between 2003 and 2012 in assessment practices......................................................................................................................... 433

Table IV.4.37 Change between 2003 and 2012 in monitoring mathematics teachers’ practice ............................................................................. 436

Table IV.5.1 Arriving late for school........................................................................................................................................................................................... 437

Table IV.5.2 Concentration of students arriving late for school ....................................................................................................................................... 438

Table IV.5.3 Skipping a day of school or some classes........................................................................................................................................................ 439

Table IV.5.4 Concentration of students skipping a day of school or some classes ..................................................................................................... 440

Table IV.5.5 Index of teacher-student relations and mathematics performance.......................................................................................................... 441

Table IV.5.6 Index of disciplinary climate and mathematics performance.................................................................................................................... 443

Table IV.5.7 Index of teacher-related factors affecting school climate and mathematics performance................................................................ 445

Table IV.5.8 Index of student-related factors affecting school climate and mathematics performance................................................................ 447

Table IV.5.9 Principals’ views on student truancy................................................................................................................................................................. 449

Table IV.5.10 Index of teacher morale and mathematics performance............................................................................................................................. 450

Table IV.5.11 Correlation between learning environment indicators at the school level............................................................................................ 452

Table IV.5.12 Correlation between learning environment indicators and school average socio-economic status at the school level......... 454

Table IV.5.13 Relationship between disciplinary climate and school features............................................................................................................... 455

Table IV.5.14 Probability of having skipped a class or a day of school, by students having arrived late for school........................................... 457

Table IV.5.15 Students arriving late for school and student gender and immigrant backgrounds............................................................................ 458

Table IV.5.16 Relationship between student having arrived late for school and student and school features...................................................... 459

Table IV.5.17 Change between 2003 and 2012 in teacher-student relations.................................................................................................................. 461

Table IV.5.18 Change between 2003 and 2012 in disciplinary climate........................................................................................................................... 464

Table IV.5.19 Change between 2003 and 2012 in teacher-related factors affecting school climate....................................................................... 467

Table IV.5.20 Change between 2003 and 2012 in student-related factors affecting school climate....................................................................... 470

Table IV.5.21 Change between 2003 and 2012 in teacher morale.................................................................................................................................... 473

Table IV.5.22 Change between 2003 and 2012 in arriving late for school..................................................................................................................... 475

Table IV.5.23 Change between 2003 and 2012 in the concentration of students arriving late for school............................................................ 476

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 15
Table of contents

Table B2.IV.1 Grade repetition, by region................................................................................................................................................................................... 477

Table B2.IV.2 School admissions policies, by region.............................................................................................................................................................. 479
Table B2.IV.3 School transfer policies, by region..................................................................................................................................................................... 485
Table B2.IV.4 Ability grouping for mathematics classes, by region.................................................................................................................................... 489
Table B2.IV.5 Composition and qualifications of teaching staff, by region...................................................................................................................... 493
Table B2.IV.6 Index of teacher shortage and mathematics performance, by region..................................................................................................... 495
Table B2.IV.7 Teacher professional development, by region................................................................................................................................................ 499
Table B2.IV.8 Index of quality of physical infrastructure and mathematics performance, by region....................................................................... 500
Table B2.IV.9 Index of quality of schools’ educational resources and mathematics performance, by region...................................................... 504
Table B2.IV.10 Students’ learning time in school, by region................................................................................................................................................... 508
Table B2.IV.11 Percentage of students attending after-school lessons (hours per week), by region........................................................................... 512
Table B2.IV.12 Index of creative extracurricular activities at school and mathematics performance, by region.................................................... 514
Table B2.IV.14 Pre-school attendance, by region....................................................................................................................................................................... 518
Table B2.IV.16 Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment and mathematics performance, by region................................. 519
Table B2.IV.17 School choice, by region....................................................................................................................................................................................... 523
Table B2.IV.18 School type and performance in mathematics, reading and science, by region................................................................................. 524
Table B2.IV.21 Use of achievement data for accountability purposes, by region............................................................................................................ 528
Table B2.IV.22 Quality assurance and school improvement, by region.............................................................................................................................. 529
Table B2.IV.24 Index of disciplinary climate and mathematics performance, by region............................................................................................... 531

This book has...

StatLinks 2 ®
A service that delivers Excel ﬁles
from the printed page!
Look for the StatLinks at the bottom left-hand corner of the tables or graphs in this book.
To download the matching Excel® spreadsheet, just type the link into your Internet browser,
starting with the http://dx.doi.org prefix.
If you’re reading the PDF e-book edition, and your PC is connected to the Internet, simply
click on the link. You’ll find StatLinks appearing in more OECD books.

16 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Executive Summary

The organisation of learning environments is related to education outcomes. As in other organisations, decisions taken
at one level in a school system are affected by decisions taken at other levels. For example, what happens in the
classroom is influenced by decisions taken at the school level; and decisions taken at the school level are affected by the
decisions – particularly those concerning resources, policies and practices – taken by district, regional and/or national
education administrations.

Stratification in school systems, which is the result of policies like grade repetition and selecting students
at a young age for different programmes or “tracks”, is negatively related to equity; and students
in highly stratified systems tend to be less motivated than those in less-stratified systems.
In systems where students are more likely to repeat a grade, the impact of students’ socio-economic status on their
academic performance is stronger than in systems where this type of stratification is not practiced. In 35 of 61 countries
and economies examined, when comparing two students with similar mathematics performance, the student who is
more socio-economically disadvantaged is more likely to have repeated a grade. Across OECD countries, an average of
12% of students reported that they had repeated a grade at least once. Among the 13 countries and economies that had
grade repetition rates of more than 20% in 2003, these rates dropped by an average of 3.5 percentage points by 2012,
and fell sharply in France, Luxembourg, Macao-China, Mexico and Tunisia.

How resources are allocated in education is just as important as the amount of resources available
to be allocated.
PISA results show that beyond a certain level of expenditure per student, excellence in education requires more
than money. Among countries and economies whose per capita GDP is more than USD 20 000, including most
OECD countries, systems that pay teachers more (i.e. higher teachers’ salaries relative to national income per capita)
tend to perform better in mathematics.

High-performing countries and economies tend to allocate resources more equitably across socio-economically
advantaged and disadvantaged schools.
That said, PISA results show that in many school systems, resources are not allocated equitably: On average across
OECD countries, while disadvantaged schools tend to have smaller classes, they tend to be more likely to suffer from
teacher shortages, and shortages or inadequacy of educational materials and physical infrastructures than advantaged
schools.

Most countries and economies with comparable data between 2003 and 2012 have moved towards
better‑staffed and better-equipped schools.
Of the 36 countries and economies with comparable data for this period, 21 saw a reduction in student-teacher ratios;
20 of 38 countries and economies with comparable data saw a reduction in teacher shortages; and more school principals
in 2012 than in 2003 reported that schools are in good physical condition.

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 17
Executive Summary

Students in 2012 were more likely than their counterparts in 2003 to have attended at least one year
of pre‑primary education.
While more 15-old students reported to have enrolled in pre-primary education during the period, many of the students
who reported that they had not attended pre-primary school are disadvantaged – the students who could benefit most
from pre-primary education.

If offered a choice of schools for their child, parents are more likely to consider such criteria as “a safe school
environment” and “a school’s good reputation” more important than “high academic achievement of students
in the school”.
The criteria parents use to choose a school for their child not only vary across school systems, but also within systems.
In all countries and economies with data from parents, socio-economically disadvantaged parents are more likely than
advantaged parents to report that they considered “low expenses” and “financial aid” to be very important criteria in
choosing a school.

In 37 participating countries and economies, students who attend private schools (either government-dependent
or government-independent schools) are more socio-economically advantaged than those who attend
public schools.
The difference in the average socio-economic status of students in private schools compared with those in public schools
is particularly large in Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Poland and Uruguay. Only in Chinese Taipei is the average
socio‑economic status of students who attend public schools more advantaged than that of those who attend private
schools.

Schools in high-performing systems tend to have more responsibility for curricula and assessments.
Schools with more autonomy tend to perform better than schools with less autonomy when they are part of school
systems with more accountability arrangements and greater teacher-principal collaboration in school management.

Between 2003 and 2012 there was a clear trend towards schools using student assessments to compare
the school’s performance with district or national performance and with that of other schools.
On average across OECD countries, in 2003, 46% of students attended schools whose principal reported that the
school uses student assessment data to compare itself against national or district performance; by 2012, 62% of students
attended such schools. Similarly, the percentage of students who attended schools that use assessment data to compare
themselves to other schools increased from 40% to 52% during the period. The use of student-assessment data to
compare against national or regional benchmarks or with other schools increased most notably in Brazil, Denmark,
Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, and declined only in Finland between 2003 and 2012.

Systems with larger proportions of students who arrive late for school and skip classes tend to show
lower overall performance.
Schools with more student truancy and more disciplinary problems are also those with more socio-economically
disadvantaged student populations. But even when comparing schools of similar socio-economic status, students in
schools with more disciplinary problems tend to perform worse than their peers in schools with a better disciplinary
climate.

According to students’ reports, teacher-student relations improved between 2003 and 2012 in all
but one country, Tunisia, where they remained stable.
The share of students who “agree” or “strongly agree” that they get along with most teachers increased by 12 percentage
points on average across OECD countries during the period and increased by more than ten percentage points in
22 countries and economies.

Between 2003 and 2012, disciplinary climate also improved on average across OECD countries
and across 27 individual countries and economies.
Disciplinary climate improved the most in the Czech Republic, Hong Kong-China, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg and
Norway, but deteriorated in Germany and Tunisia during the period. PISA results also show that in 45 countries and
economies, schools whose student population is predominantly socio-economically disadvantaged tend to have a more
negative disciplinary climate.

18 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Reader’s Guide
Data underlying the figures
The data referred to in this volume are presented in Annex B and, in greater detail, including some additional
tables, on the PISA website (www.pisa.oecd.org).

Four symbols are used to denote missing data:

a The category does not apply in the country concerned. Data are therefore missing.
c There are too few observations or no observation to provide reliable estimates (i.e. there are fewer than
30 students or fewer than 5 schools with valid data).
m Data are not available. These data were not submitted by the country or were collected but subsequently
removed from the publication for technical reasons.
w Data have been withdrawn or have not been collected at the request of the country concerned.

Country coverage
This publication features data on 65 countries and economies, including all 34 OECD countries and 31 partner
countries and economies (see map in the section What is PISA?).

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The
use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Two notes were added to the statistical data related to Cyprus:

1. Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of
the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey
recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within
the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
2. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of
Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this
document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Calculating international averages

An OECD average corresponding to the arithmetic mean of the respective country estimates was calculated
for most indicators presented in this report. The OECD average is used to compare performance across school
systems. In the case of some countries, data may not be available for specific indicators, or specific categories may
not apply. Readers should, therefore, keep in mind that the term “OECD average” refers to the OECD countries
included in the respective comparisons.

Rounding figures
Because of rounding, some figures in tables may not exactly add up to the totals. Totals, differences and averages
are always calculated on the basis of exact numbers and are rounded only after calculation.

All standard errors in this publication have been rounded to one or two decimal places. Where the value 0.0
or 0.00 is shown, this does not imply that the standard error is zero, but that it is smaller than 0.05 or 0.005,
respectively.

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 19
Reader’s Guide

Reporting student data

The report uses “15-year-olds” as shorthand for the PISA target population. PISA covers students who are aged
between 15 years 3 months and 16 years 2 months at the time of assessment and who are enrolled in school and
have completed at least 6 years of formal schooling, regardless of the type of institution in which they are enrolled
and of whether they are in full-time or part-time education, of whether they attend academic or vocational
programmes, and of whether they attend public or private schools or foreign schools within the country.

Reporting school data

The principals of the schools in which students were assessed provided information on their schools’ characteristics
by completing a school questionnaire. Where responses from school principals are presented in this publication,
they are weighted so that they are proportionate to the number of 15-year-olds enrolled in the school.

Focusing on statistically significant differences

This volume discusses only statistically significant differences or changes. These are denoted in darker colours in
figures and in bold font in tables. See Annex A3 for further information.

Abbreviations used in this report

ESCS PISA index of economic, social and cultural status PPP Purchasing power parity
GDP Gross domestic product S.D. Standard deviation
ISCED International Standard Classification of Education S.E. Standard error
ISCO International Standard Classification STEM Science, Technology, Engineering
of Occupations and Mathematics

Further documentation
For further information on the PISA assessment instruments and the methods used in PISA, see the PISA 2012
Technical Report (OECD, forthcoming). The reader should note that there are gaps in the numbering of
tables because some tables appear on line only and are not included in this publication. To consult the set
of web‑only data tables, visit the PISA website (www.pisa.oecd.org).
This report uses the OECD StatLinks service. Below each table and chart is a url leading to a corresponding
ExcelTM workbook containing the underlying data. These urls are stable and will remain unchanged over time.
In addition, readers of the e-books will be able to click directly on these links and the workbook will open in a
separate window, if their internet browser is open and running.

20 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
What is PISA?

“What is important for citizens to know and be able to do?” That is the question that underlies the triennial survey of
15-year-old students around the world known as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA assesses
the extent to which students near the end of compulsory education have acquired key knowledge and skills that are
essential for full participation in modern societies. The assessment, which focuses on reading, mathematics, science and
problem solving, does not just ascertain whether students can reproduce knowledge; it also examines how well students
can extrapolate from what they have learned and apply that knowledge in unfamiliar settings, both in and outside of
school. This approach reflects the fact that modern economies reward individuals not for what they know, but for what
they can do with what they know.

PISA is an ongoing programme that offers insights for education policy and practice, and that helps monitor trends in
students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills across countries and economies and in different demographic subgroups
within each country. PISA results reveal what is possible in education by showing what students in the highest-performing
and most rapidly improving school systems can do. The findings allow policy makers around the world to gauge the
knowledge and skills of students in their own countries in comparison with those in other countries, set policy targets
against measurable goals achieved by other school systems, and learn from policies and practices applied elsewhere.
While PISA cannot identify cause-and-effect relationships between policies/practices and student outcomes, it can show
educators, policy makers and the interested public how education systems are similar and different – and what that
means for students.

A test the whole world can take

PISA is now used as an assessment tool in many regions around the world. It was implemented in 43 countries
and economies in the first assessment (32 in 2000 and 11 in 2002), 41 in the second assessment (2003), 57 in
the third assessment (2006) and 75 in the fourth assessment (65 in 2009 and 10 in 2010). So far, 65 countries and
economies have participated in PISA 2012.

In addition to OECD member countries, the survey has been or is being conducted in:

East, South and Southeast Asia: Himachal Pradesh-India, Hong Kong-China, Indonesia, Macao-China, Malaysia,
Shanghai-China, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Tamil Nadu-India, Thailand and Viet Nam.

Central, Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia: Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta,
Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, the Russian Federation and Serbia.

The Middle East: Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Central and South America: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Netherlands-Antilles, Panama, Peru, Trinidad
and Tobago, Uruguay and Miranda-Venezuela.

Africa: Mauritius and Tunisia.

Decisions about the scope and nature of the PISA assessments and the background information to be collected
are made by participating countries based on recommendations from leading experts. Considerable efforts and
resources are devoted to achieving cultural and linguistic breadth and balance in assessment materials. Since the
design and translation of the test, as well as sampling and data collection, are subject to strict quality controls, PISA
findings are considered to be highly valid and reliable.
...

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 21
What is PISA?

Map of PISA countries and economies

OECD countries Partner countries and economies in PISA 2012 Partner countries and economies in previous cycles
Australia Japan Albania Montenegro Azerbaijan
Austria Korea Argentina Peru Georgia
Belgium Luxembourg Brazil Qatar Himachal Pradesh-India
Canada Mexico Bulgaria Romania Kyrgyzstan
Chile Netherlands Colombia Russian Federation Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Czech Republic New Zealand Costa Rica Serbia Malta
Denmark Norway Croatia Shanghai-China Mauritius
Estonia Poland Cyprus1, 2 Singapore Miranda-Venezuela
Finland Portugal Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Moldova
France Slovak Republic Indonesia Thailand Panama
Germany Slovenia Jordan Tunisia Tamil Nadu-India
Greece Spain Kazakhstan United Arab Emirates Trinidad and Tobago
Hungary Sweden Latvia Uruguay
Iceland Switzerland Liechtenstein Viet Nam
Ireland Turkey Lithuania
Israel United Kingdom Macao-China
Italy United States Malaysia

1. Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both
Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found
within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
2. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations
with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

PISA’s unique features include its:

• policy orientation, which links data on student learning outcomes with data on students’ backgrounds and attitudes
towards learning and on key factors that shape their learning, in and outside of school, in order to highlight differences
in performance and identify the characteristics of students, schools and school systems that perform well;
• innovative concept of “literacy”, which refers to students’ capacity to apply knowledge and skills in key subjects, and
to analyse, reason and communicate effectively as they identify, interpret and solve problems in a variety of situations;
• relevance to lifelong learning, as PISA asks students to report on their motivation to learn, their beliefs about themselves,
and their learning strategies;
• regularity, which enables countries and economies to monitor their progress in meeting key learning objectives; and
• breadth of coverage, which, in PISA 2012, encompasses the 34 OECD member countries and 31 partner countries
and economies.

22 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
What is PISA?

Key features of PISA 2012

The content
• The PISA 2012 survey focused on mathematics, with reading, science and problem solving as minor areas of
assessment. For the first time, PISA 2012 also included an assessment of the financial literacy of young people,
which was optional for countries and economies.
• PISA assesses not only whether students can reproduce knowledge, but also whether they can extrapolate from
what they have learned and apply their knowledge in new situations. It emphasises the mastery of processes, the
understanding of concepts, and the ability to function in various types of situations.

The students
• Around 510 000 students completed the assessment in 2012, representing about 28 million 15-year-olds in the
schools of the 65 participating countries and economies.

The assessment
• Paper-based tests were used, with assessments lasting a total of two hours for each student. In a range of countries
and economies, an additional 40 minutes were devoted to the computer-based assessment of mathematics,
reading and problem solving.
• Test items were a mixture of multiple-choice items and questions requiring students to construct their own
responses. The items were organised in groups based on a passage setting out a real-life situation. A total of
about 390 minutes of test items were covered, with different students taking different combinations of test items.
• Students answered a background questionnaire, which took 30 minutes to complete, that sought information
about themselves, their homes and their school and learning experiences. School principals were given
a questionnaire, to complete in 30 minutes, that covered the school system and the learning environment.
In some countries and economies, optional questionnaires were distributed to parents, who were asked to
provide information on their perceptions of and involvement in their child’s school, their support for learning
in the home, and their child’s career expectations, particularly in mathematics. Countries and economies could
choose two other optional questionnaires for students: one asked students about their familiarity with and use
of information and communication technologies, and the second sought information about their education to
date, including any interruptions in their schooling and whether and how they are preparing for a future career.

Who are the PISA students?

Differences between countries in the nature and extent of pre-primary education and care, in the age of entry into
formal schooling, in the structure of the school system, and in the prevalence of grade repetition mean that school grade
levels are often not good indicators of where students are in their cognitive development. To better compare student
performance internationally, PISA targets a specific age of students. PISA students are aged between 15 years 3 months
and 16 years 2 months at the time of the assessment, and have completed at least 6 years of formal schooling. They
can be enrolled in any type of institution, participate in full-time or part-time education, in academic or vocational
programmes, and attend public or private schools or foreign schools within the country or economy. (For an operational
definition of this target population, see Annex A2.) Using this age across countries and over time allows PISA to compare
consistently the knowledge and skills of individuals born in the same year who are still in school at age 15, despite the
diversity of their education histories in and outside of school.

The population of participating students is defined by strict technical standards, as are the students who are excluded from
participating (see Annex A2). The overall exclusion rate within a country was required to be below 5% to ensure that,
under reasonable assumptions, any distortions in national mean scores would remain within plus or minus 5 score points,
i.e. typically within the order of magnitude of 2 standard errors of sampling. Exclusion could take place either through the
schools that participated or the students who participated within schools (see Annex A2, Tables A2.1 and A2.2).

There are several reasons why a school or a student could be excluded from PISA. Schools might be excluded because
they are situated in remote regions and are inaccessible, because they are very small, or because of organisational or
operational factors that precluded participation. Students might be excluded because of intellectual disability or limited
proficiency in the language of the assessment.

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 23
What is PISA?

In 28 out of the 65 countries and economies participating in PISA 2012, the percentage of school-level exclusions
amounted to less than 1%; it was less than 4% in all countries and economies. When the exclusion of students who met
the internationally established exclusion criteria is also taken into account, the exclusion rates increase slightly. However,
the overall exclusion rate remains below 2% in 30 participating countries and economies, below 5% in 57 participating
countries and economies, and below 7% in all countries except Luxembourg (8.4%). In 11 out of the 34 OECD countries,
the percentage of school-level exclusions amounted to less than 1% and was less than 3% in 31 OECD countries.
When student exclusions within schools were also taken into account, there were 11 OECD countries below 2% and
26 OECD countries below 5%.
(For more detailed information about the restrictions on the level of exclusions in PISA 2012, see Annex A2.)

What kinds of results does the test provide?

The PISA assessment provides three main types of outcomes:
• basic indicators that provide a baseline profile of students’ knowledge and skills;
• indicators that show how skills relate to important demographic, social, economic and educational variables; and
• indicators on trends that show changes in student performance and in the relationships between student-level and
school-level variables and outcomes.

Although indicators can highlight important issues, they do not provide direct answers to policy questions. To respond to
this, PISA also developed a policy-oriented analysis plan that uses the indicators as a basis for policy discussion.

Where can you find the results?

This is the fourth of six volumes that present the results from PISA 2012. It begins by examining the relationships between
education outcomes and various school and system characteristics, including the use of vertical and horizontal stratification,
resource allocation, how the school system is organised and governed, and the learning environment in the school and
classroom. Chapter 2 discusses the ways in which students are selected and grouped into certain education levels, grade
levels, schools, programmes and different classes within schools based on their performance; Chapter 3 examines the
allocation of human, material and financial resources throughout school systems and the amount of time dedicated
to instruction and learning; Chapter 4 explores the inter-relationships among school autonomy, school competition,
public and private management of schools, school leadership, parental involvement, and assessment and accountability
arrangements; and Chapter 5 discusses student- and teacher-related aspects of the learning environment, including student
truancy, teacher-student relations, the disciplinary climate and teacher morale. Whenever comparable data are available,
trends between 2003 and 2012 are highlighted. Case studies, examining the policy reforms adopted by countries that have
improved in PISA, are presented throughout. The concluding chapter discusses the policy implications of the PISA results.

The other five volumes cover the following issues:

Volume I, What Students Know and Can Do: Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science, summarises
the performance of students in PISA 2012. It describes how performance is defined, measured and reported, and
then provides results from the assessment, showing what students are able to do in mathematics. After a summary of
mathematics performance, it examines the ways in which this performance varies on subscales representing different
aspects of mathematics literacy. Given that any comparison of the outcomes of education systems needs to take into
consideration countries’ social and economic circumstances, and the resources they devote to education, the volume also
presents the results within countries’ economic and social contexts. In addition, the volume examines the relationship
between the frequency and intensity of students’ exposure to subject content in school, what is known as “opportunity
to learn”, and student performance. The volume concludes with a description of student results in reading and science.
Trends in student performance in mathematics between 2003 and 2012, in reading between 2000 and 2012, and in
science between 2006 and 2012 are examined when comparable data are available. Throughout the volume, case studies
examine in greater detail the policy reforms adopted by countries that have improved in PISA.

Volume II, Excellence through Equity: Giving Every Student the Chance to Succeed, defines and measures equity
in education and analyses how equity in education has evolved across countries and economies between PISA 2003
and 2012. The volume examines the relationship between student performance and socio-economic status, and
describes how other individual student characteristics, such as immigrant background and family structure, and school
characteristics, such as school location, are associated with socio-economic status and performance. The volume also

24 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
What is PISA?

reveals differences in how equitably countries allocate resources and opportunities to learn to schools with different
socio-economic profiles. Case studies, examining the policy reforms adopted by countries that have improved in PISA,
are highlighted throughout the volume.

Volume III, Ready to Learn: Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs, explores students’ engagement with and at
school, their drive and motivation to succeed, and the beliefs they hold about themselves as mathematics learners. The
volume identifies the students who are at particular risk of having low levels of engagement in, and holding negative
dispositions towards, school in general and mathematics in particular, and how engagement, drive, motivation and
self-beliefs are related to mathematics performance. The volume identifies the roles schools can play in shaping the
well-being of students and the role parents can play in promoting their children’s engagement with and dispositions
towards learning. Changes in students’ engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs between 2003 and 2012, and how
those dispositions have changed during the period among particular subgroups of students, notably socio-economically
advantaged and disadvantaged students, boys and girls, and students at different levels of mathematics proficiency, are
examined when comparable data are available. Throughout the volume, case studies examine in greater detail the policy
reforms adopted by countries that have improved in PISA.

Volume V, Skills for Life: Student Performance in Problem Solving, presents student performance in the PISA 2012
assessment of problem solving, which measures students’ capacity to respond to non-routine situations in order to
achieve their potential as constructive and reflective citizens. It provides the rationale for assessing problem-solving skills
and describes performance within and across countries and economies. In addition, the volume highlights the relative
strengths and weaknesses of each school system and examines how they are related to individual student characteristics,
such as gender, immigrant background and socio-economic status. The volume also explores the role of education in
fostering problem-solving skills.

Volume VI, Students and Money: Financial Literacy Skills for the 21st Century, examines 15-year-old students’
performance in financial literacy in the 18 countries and economies that participated in this optional assessment. It also
discusses the relationship of financial literacy to students’ and their families’ background and to students’ mathematics
and reading skills. The volume also explores students’ access to money and their experience with financial matters. In
addition, it provides an overview of the current status of financial education in schools and highlights relevant case
studies.

The frameworks for assessing mathematics, reading and science in 2012 are described in PISA 2012 Assessment and
Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy (OECD, 2013). They are
also summarised in this volume.

Technical annexes at the end of this report describe how questionnaire indices were constructed and discuss sampling
issues, quality-assurance procedures, the reliability of coding, and the process followed for developing the assessment
instruments. Many of the issues covered in the technical annexes are elaborated in greater detail in the PISA 2012
Technical Report (OECD, forthcoming).

All data tables referred to in the analysis are included at the end of the respective volume in Annex B1, and a set of
additional data tables is available on line (www.pisa.oecd.org). A Reader’s Guide is also provided in each volume to aid
in interpreting the tables and figures that accompany the report. Data from regions within the participating countries are
included in Annex B2.

References
OECD (forthcoming), PISA 2012 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing.

OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial
Literacy, PISA, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 25
1

How Resources, Policies

and Practices are Related
to Education Outcomes
This chapter examines the relationships between education outcomes
and various school and system characteristics, including the use of
vertical and horizontal stratification, resource allocation, how the school
system is organised and governed, and the learning environment in the
school and classroom. Trends in these relationships up to 2012 are also
discussed.

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 27
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

This volume focuses on how the organisation of learning environments relates to education outcomes in countries and
economies that participated in PISA 2012. As in other organisations, decisions taken at one level in a school system are
affected by the context and by decisions taken at other levels (see the PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework
[OECD, 2013a]). For example, what happens in the classroom is influenced by the context and decisions made at the
school level; and decisions made at the school level are affected by the context and decisions made at higher levels in
school administrations (i.e. districts or national ministries) (Gamoran, Secada and Marrett, 2000). Thus, when analysing
the organisational arrangement of school systems it is important to consider the organisation of learning environments
at the school and school system levels together.

Data collected through the PISA 2012 student, parent and school questionnaires are used to describe how schools are
organised. Some student-level data are aggregated at the school level to approximate school features, and some school-
level data are aggregated at the system level to approximate system characteristics. School-level data from PISA are
complemented by OECD system-level data.1

This volume also analyses how the organisation of schools and its relationships with education outcomes have changed
over time. Comparisons are made between PISA 2012 and PISA 2003, the last time mathematics was assessed in depth.
To account for the extent to which the observed relationships are influenced by the level of economic development of
countries and economies, the comparison of school systems discussed in this chapter also considers national income
per capita (per capita GDP).

The first chapter examines the relationships between education outcomes and various school and system characteristics.
Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 then describe these school and system characteristics in detail: Chapter 2 describes how and when
students are distributed across different grade levels, programmes and schools; Chapter 3 focuses on resources invested
in education at the system level and examines how resources are allocated across schools within systems; Chapter 4
describes school-governance issues, including school autonomy, school choice, and assessment and accountability
arrangements; and Chapter 5 focuses on learning environments at school, examining how these are related to other
aspects of school organisation discussed in Chapters 2 through 4.

• Figure IV.1.1 •
Structure of Volume IV

Chapter 2 Chapter 3
• Vertical stratification • Financial resources
• Horizontal stratification • Human resources
(between schools) • Material resources
• Horizontal stratification • Time resources
(within schools)

Chapter 1
Relationship between
education outcomes and...

Chapter 5 Chapter 4
• Student truancy • School governance
• School climate • Assessment and
accountability policies

28 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

What the data tell us

• Stratification in school systems, the result of policies like grade repetition and early selection, is negatively
related to equity.
• Among countries and economies whose per capita GDP is more than USD 20 000, including most OECD
countries, systems that pay teachers more (i.e. higher teachers’ salaries relative to national income) tend to
perform better in mathematics.
• High-performing countries and economies tend to allocate resources more equitably across socio-economically
advantaged and disadvantaged schools.
• School autonomy has a positive relationship with student performance when accountability measures are in
place and/or when school principals and teachers collaborate in school management.
• Systems with larger proportions of students who arrive late for school and skip classes tend to show lower
overall performance in mathematics.

Performance differences among school systems, schools and students

As discussed in Volume I, academic performance among 15-year-old students varies widely, and that variation is related
both to individual student characteristics and to the characteristics of schools and school systems in which those students
are enrolled.

In the PISA 2012 assessment of mathematics, about half of the variation in student performance is observed between
schools and school systems. Figure IV.1.2 shows that among OECD countries, 10% of the variation in mathematics
performance observed among students is attributable to differences in performance among school systems, 36% is
attributable to differences in performance among schools within a country, and 54% is attributable to differences in
performance among students in a school. Among all countries and economies that participated in PISA 2012, 23% of
the performance variation among students is observed at the system level, 31% is observed at the school level, and 46%
is observed at the student level.

• Figure IV.1.2 •
Variation in mathematics performance between systems, schools and students

Between systems Between schools Between students

All participating countries

OECD countries and economies

10%
23%

54% 36% 46%

31%

Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database.

This chapter relates features of school organisation and the learning environment to the performance of students within
countries and economies and analyses how countries and economies differ in the relationships among these features,
overall performance in mathematics, and the level of equity in school systems. The cross-national analyses provide an
overview of how system-level attributes and major organisational arrangements relate to student performance and equity
in school systems. As always, such relationships require further study in order to determine causality (Box IV.1.1).

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 29
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

Box IV.1.1. Interpreting the data from students, parents and schools

PISA 2012 asked students and school principals (and, in some countries, parents) to answer questions about
the learning environment and organisation of schools, and the social and economic contexts in which learning
takes place. Information based on reports from school principals or parents has been weighted so that it reflects
the number of 15-year-olds enrolled in each school. These are self-reports rather than external observations and
may be influenced by cultural differences in how individuals respond. For example, students’ perceptions of
classroom situations may reflect the actual classroom situation imperfectly, or students may choose to respond
in a way that does not accurately reflect their genuine thoughts because certain responses may be more socially
desirable/acceptable than others.

Several of the indices presented in this volume summarise the responses of students, parents or school principals
to a series of related questions. The questions were selected from larger constructs on the basis of theoretical
considerations and previous research. Structural equation modelling was used to confirm the theoretically
expected dimensions of the indices and validate their comparability across countries. For this purpose, a model
was estimated separately for each country or economy and collectively for all OECD countries. For detailed
information on the construction of these indices, see Annex A1.

In addition to the general limitation of self-reported data, there are other limitations, particularly those concerning
the information collected from principals, that should be taken into account when interpreting the data:

• An average of 346 principals was surveyed in each OECD country, but in 7 countries and economies, fewer
than 150 principals were surveyed. In all of these countries and economies, the weighted school participation
rate after all replacements is 95% or higher. In 6 of these 7 countries and economies, this was because fewer
than 150 schools were attended by 15-year-old students.
• Although principals can provide information about their schools, generalising from a single source of
information for each school and then matching that information with students’ reports is not straightforward.
Students’ opinions and performance in each subject depend on many factors, including all the education that
they have acquired in previous years and their experiences outside the school setting.
• Principals’ perceptions may not be the most appropriate sources of some information related to teachers, such
as teachers’ morale and commitment.
• The learning environment examined by PISA may only partially reflect the learning environment that shaped
students’ experiences in education earlier in their school careers, particularly in school systems where
students progress through different types of educational institutions at the pre-primary, primary, lower
secondary and upper secondary levels. To the extent that students’ current learning environment differs from
that of their earlier school years, the contextual data collected by PISA are an imperfect proxy for students’
cumulative learning environments, and the effects of those environments on learning outcomes is likely to
be underestimated.
• In most cases, 15-year-old students have been in their current school for only two to three years. This means
that much of their academic development took place earlier, in other schools, which may have little or no
connection with the present school.
• In some countries and economies, the definition of the school in which students are taught is not straightforward
because schools vary in the level and purpose of education. For example, in some countries and economies,
sub-units within schools (e.g. study programmes, shifts and campuses) were sampled instead of schools as
administrative units.

Despite these caveats, information from the school questionnaire provides unique insights into the ways in which
national and sub-national authorities seek to realise their education objectives.

In using results from non-experimental data on school performance, such as the PISA Database, it is also important
to bear in mind the distinction between school effects and the effects of schooling, particularly when interpreting

...

30 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

the modest association between factors such as school resources, policies and institutional characteristics and
student performance. The effect of schooling is the influence on performance of not being schooled compared
with being schooled. As a set of well-controlled studies has shown, this can have a significant impact not only
on knowledge but also on fundamental cognitive skills (e.g. Ceci, 1991; Blair et al., 2005). School effects are
education researchers’ shorthand for the effect on academic performance of attending one school or another,
usually schools that differ in resources or policies and institutional characteristics. Where schools and school
systems do not vary in fundamental ways, the school effect can be modest. Nevertheless, modest school effects
should not be confused with a lack of an effect by schooling.

The analyses that relate the performance and equity levels of school systems to education policies and practices
are carried out through a correlation analysis. A correlation is a simple statistic that measures the degree to
which two variables are associated with each other, but does not prove causality between the two. Since the
relationships are in general examined only after accounting for countries’ per capita income, omitted variables
could be related to these variables and their relationship in a significant way.

Given the nested nature of the PISA sample (students nested in schools that, in turn, are nested in countries),
other statistical techniques, such as Hierarchical Linear Models or Structural Equation Modeling may seem more
appropriate. Yet, even these sophisticated statistical techniques cannot adequately take into account the nature of
the PISA sample for the system-level analyses because participating countries and economies are not randomly
selected. The system-level correlations presented here are consistent with results from earlier PISA analyses,
which used more sophisticated statistical techniques. Given that the limitations of a correlation analysis using
PISA data are not completely overcome by using more sophisticated statistical tools, the simplest method was
used. The robustness and sensitivity of the findings are checked against other specifications. Cautionary notes are
provided to help the reader correctly interpret the results presented in this volume.

In contrast, the within-system analyses are based on multilevel regression models appropriate for the random
sampling of schools and the random sampling of students within these schools.

Comparisons of results between resources, policies and practices and mathematics performance across time
(trends analyses) should also be interpreted with caution. Changes in the strength of the relationship between
policies and practices and mathematics performance cannot be considered causal because they can occur
for two reasons. First, a particular set of resources, policies and practices might have been chosen by higher-
performing students or higher-performing schools while lower-performing students/schools did not choose
that set of resources, policies and practices. Under this interpretation, the relationship between mathematics
performance and resources, policies and practices becomes stronger because higher-performing students and
schools choose them. Second, a particular set of resources, policies and practices may have promoted student
learning more in 2012 than in 2003. PISA trends data indicates where changes have taken place, but although
they cannot provide precise explanations of the nature of the change, trends data shed light on the ways in which
a school system is evolving. However, further analysis is needed to unveil the underlying processes (Box IV.1.3
provides more details on interpreting trends analysis results).

Measuring the success of school systems

“Successful” school systems are defined here as those that perform above the OECD average in mathematics (494 points)
and in which students’ socio-economic status has a weaker-than-average impact on mathematics performance (on
average across OECD countries, 14.8% of the variation in mathematics scores is accounted for by the socio-economic
status of students). As shown in Volume II, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong-China, Japan, Korea,
Liechtenstein and Macao-China perform at higher levels than the OECD average and also show a weaker relationship
between socio-economic status and performance (Figure IV.1.3).

The following sections analyse some of the features shared by these successful school systems that relate to their
allocation of resources, policies and practices. The analysis is also extended to the school level within countries, before
and after accounting for the socio-economic status of students and schools (Box IV.1.2).

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 31
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.3 •
Student performance and equity

Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic status is above the OECD average
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic status is not statistically
significantly different from the OECD average
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic status is below the OECD average

Mean
score
Above-average mathematics performance Above-average mathematics performance
650 Below-average equity in education outcomes Above-average equity in education outcomes
1. Denmark
2. Czech Republic
3. Austria
4. Slovenia Shanghai-China
600

Canada
Singapore
Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Hong Kong-China
Korea
550
Japan Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Germany
Poland Macao-
Belgium Ireland Estonia China
3 Australia
500 OECD average France
New Zealand 1 2 4 Netherlands Finland

Spain Latvia Norway

Slovak Republic Portugal Italy
Sweden Iceland
Israel Lithuania
Hungary Luxembourg Russian Federation
450 United States Croatia United Kingdom
Greece
Bulgaria Turkey Serbia
Romania Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Chile United Arab Emirates
Costa Rica Thailand
400 Mexico
Uruguay Montenegro
Brazil Jordan
Argentina Tunisia Qatar
Colombia Indonesia
350 Peru
OECD average

300
Below-average mathematics performance Below-average mathematics performance
Below-average equity in education outcomes Above-average equity in education outcomes
GREATER
EQUITY
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Percentage of variance in performance explained by
the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Table II.2.1.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

Box IV.1.2. How PISA examines resources, policies, practices and education outcomes

When examining the relationship between education outcomes and resources, policies and practices, this volume
takes into account the socio-economic differences among students, schools and school systems. The advantage
of doing this lies in comparing similar entities, namely school systems and schools with similar socio-economic
profiles. At the same time, there is a risk that such adjusted comparisons underestimate the strength of the
relationship between student performance and resources, policies and practices, since most of the differences in
performance are often attributable to both policies and socio-economic status. For example, it may be that in better-
performing schools, parents have high expectations for the school and exert pressure on the school to fulfil those
expectations. After accounting for socio-economic factors, an existing relationship between parents’ expectations
of the school and student performance may no longer be apparent as an independent relationship because these
...

32 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

schools often have an advantaged student population. Even though the relationship between parental expectations
and student performance may exist, it is no longer observed, simply because it has been statistically accounted for
by the socio-economic differences with which it overlaps.

Conversely, analyses that do not take socio-economic status into account can overstate the relationship between
student performance and resources, policies and practices, as the level of resources and the kinds of policies
adopted may also relate to the socio-economic profile of students, schools and countries and economies. At the
same time, analyses without adjustments may paint a more realistic picture of the schools that parents choose for
their children. They may also provide more information for other stakeholders who are interested in the overall
performance of students, schools and systems, including any effects that may be related to the socio-economic
profile of schools and systems. For example, parents may be primarily interested in a school’s absolute performance
standards, even if a school’s higher achievement record stems partially from the fact that the school has a larger
proportion of advantaged students.

The analyses in this volume present relationships both before and after accounting for socio-economic differences,
and focus on differences among school systems and among schools within school systems. Unless otherwise noted,
comparisons of student performance refer to the performance of students on the mathematics scale.

Relationships between the organisational characteristics of a school system and the school system’s performance
in PISA, as well as the impact of socio-economic status on performance, are established through a correlational
analysis. The analysis is conducted both before and after accounting for the school systems’ per capita income
(i.e. per capita GDP). The analyses are undertaken first for OECD countries and then for all countries and economies
that participated in PISA (Tables IV.1.1, IV.1.2, IV.1.3, IV.1.4 and IV.1.5).2

Within school systems, these relationships are established through multilevel regression analysis. In each of the
following sections, a set of interrelated resources, policies and practices are considered jointly to establish their
relationship with student performance. For the reasons explained above, two approaches are used: an unadjusted
approach that examines the relationships as they present themselves to students, families and teachers in the
schools, irrespective of the socio-economic context; and a “like-with-like” approach that examines the relationships
after accounting for the socio-economic status and demographic background of students and schools.

How learning outcomes are related to the ways in which school systems
select and group students
Volume II highlights the challenges school systems face in addressing the needs of diverse student populations. To
meet these challenges, some countries and economies have adopted non-selective and comprehensive school systems
that seek to provide all students with similar opportunities, leaving it to each teacher and school to cater to the full
range of student abilities, interests and backgrounds. Other countries and economies respond to diversity by grouping
students, whether between schools or between classes within schools, with the aim of serving students according to their
academic potential and/or interests in specific programmes. Teaching in these schools or classes is adapted to students
with different needs; class size and teacher assignments are determined accordingly. Often, the assumption underlying
these stratification policies is that students’ talents will develop best when students reinforce each other’s interest in
learning, and create an environment that is more conducive to effective teaching.

The analysis presented in this chapter covers not only curricular differentiation (i.e. tracking or streaming) and school
selectivity, but also other forms of horizontal and vertical stratification. Vertical stratification refers to the ways in which
students progress through school as they become older. Even though the student population is differentiated into grade
levels in practically all schools that participate in PISA, in some countries, all 15-year-old students attend the same grade
level, while in other systems they are dispersed throughout various grade levels as a result of policies governing the age
of entrance into the school system and/or grade repetition.

Horizontal stratification refers to differences in instruction within a grade or education level. Horizontal stratification,
which can be adopted by the school system or by individual schools, groups students according to their interests and/or
performance. School systems make decisions on offering specific programmes (vocational or academic, for example),

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 33
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

setting the age at which students are admitted into these programmes, and determining the extent to which students’
academic records are used to select students for their schools. Individual schools make decisions about whether to
transfer students out of the school because of poor performance, behavioural problems or special needs, and whether to
group students in classes according to ability. Chapter 2 complements this analysis with a detailed description of how
different school systems implement these policies and practices and how various forms of stratification are interrelated.

Policies that regulate the selection and sorting of students into schools and classrooms can be related to performance
in various ways. On the one hand, creating homogeneous student populations may allow teachers to direct classroom
instruction to the specific needs of each group, maximising the learning potential of each group. On the other hand,
selecting and sorting students may segregate students according to socio-economic status and result in differences in
opportunities to learn. Grouping higher-achieving students together limits the opportunity for under-achieving students
to benefit by learning from their higher-achieving peers. In addition, if student sorting is related to teacher sorting, such
that high-achieving students are matched to the most talented teachers, under-achieving students may be relegated to
lower-quality instruction. Student selection and sorting may also create stereotypes and stigmas that could eventually
affect student engagement and learning.

Vertical stratification
PISA shows that the degree of school systems’ vertical stratification tends to be negatively related to the equity aspect of
education outcomes. In systems where 15-year-old students are found in different grade levels, the impact of students’
socio-economic status on their academic performance is stronger than in systems with less vertical stratification. Across
OECD countries, 34% of the variation in the impact of students’ socio-economic status on their mathematics performance
can be explained by differences in the degree of vertical stratification within the system, after accounting for per capita
GDP (Table IV.1.1).3 In contrast, the relationship between vertical stratification and average performance differs between
OECD countries on the one hand and across all participating countries and economies on the other. School systems where
15-year-old students attend a wider range of grade levels tend to have lower overall performance in mathematics, across all
participating countries and economies, even after accounting for per capita GDP,4 while no clear relationship is observed
across OECD countries, where the dispersion of 15-year-olds across grades is generally less pronounced. To some extent,
this is the expected result of a deliberate effort by some countries and economies to make education more inclusive by
accommodating students who started school at relatively late ages or who are at greater risk of dropping out.

How is grade repetition related to student performance? The literature suggests that the effect of grade repetition varies,
depending on when during their school careers students are retained (Schwerdt and West, 2012). Although some research
suggests that grade repetition does not benefit learning (Hauser, 2004; Alexander, Entwisle and Dauber, 2003; Jacob
and Lefgren, 2009; Manacorda, 2012), and there is a general understanding that grade repetition is costly for a system
(West, 2012; OECD, 2011a), grade repetition is still used in many countries (Goos et al., 2013). Sometimes the prospect
of grade repetition, itself, is seen as a source of motivation towards better engagement with school, and is accompanied
by other interventions to help a student succeed.

PISA examines the issue of grade repetition not at the individual student level but at the system level in order to avoid
selection bias (Heckman and Li, 2003).5 Grade repetition tends to be negatively related to equity, and this is especially
obvious when the relationship is examined across OECD countries, as shown in Figure IV.1.4. Across OECD countries,
26% of the variation in the impact of students’ socio-economic status on their mathematics performance can be explained
by differences in the proportion of students who repeated a grade, even after accounting for per capita GDP. Across
OECD countries, grade repetition is unrelated to the system’s overall performance; but across all PISA participating
countries and economies, systems in which more students have repeated a grade tend to be those that have lower overall
performance in mathematics (Table IV.1.1).6

Requiring that students repeat grades implies some cost, not only the expense of providing an additional year of education
(i.e. direct costs), but also the cost to society in delaying that student’s entry into the labour market by at least one year
(i.e. opportunity costs) (OECD, 2011a). Among the countries that practice grade repetition and that have relevant data
available, in Estonia, Iceland, Ireland and Israel, the direct and opportunity costs of using grade repetition for one age
group can be as low as 0.5% or less of the annual national expenditure on primary- and secondary-school education – or
between USD 9 300 and USD 35 100 per repeater (Figure IV.1.5 and Table IV.1.6). In Belgium and the Netherlands, the
cost is equivalent to 10% or more of the annual national expenditure on primary- and secondary-school education – or as
high as USD 48 900 per repeater or more. These estimates are based on the assumption that students who repeat grades
attain lower secondary education, at most. If they were to attain higher levels of education, the costs would be even greater.7

34 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.4 •
Grade repetition and equity

Before accounting for per capita GDP

Fitted line before accounting for per capita GDP1
After accounting for per capita GDP
Fitted line after accounting for per capita GDP1
GREATER
EQUITY

2 Across OECD countries

Variation in mathematics performance explained by socio-economic status (%)

Norway Iceland
8 Estonia
Finland
10 Japan Canada

Korea Mexico Italy

Sweden Netherlands
12
Australia
Turkey
14 United
Kingdom Greece Ireland Switzerland Spain
16 Slovenia
Austria
Israel Poland
18 Germany
United States R² = 0.20
Denmark New Luxembourg R² = 0.26
20 Zealand Portugal
Czech Republic Belgium
22
Hungary Chile
24 France
Slovak Republic
26

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Grade repetition (%)
GREATER
EQUITY

2 Across all participating countries and economies

1 Estonia 2
Variation in mathematics performance explained by socio-economic status (%)

Croatia
4 Finland Montenegro Macao-
Korea Russian Federation China
Iceland Qatar
Thailand Serbia
6
Kazakhstan Sweden
Hong Kong-China
8 Norway Indonesia
Jordan
1 Mexico
10 Japan
Canada Italy
12 Australia United Arab Emirates
2 Viet Nam Netherlands Tunisia
14 United Latvia Colombia
Kingdom Switzerland Argentina
Lithuania Turkey
16 Slovenia Brazil
United States
Ireland Spain R² = 0.07
Israel 3 Austria R² = 0.08
18 Germany Portugal
Chinese Taipei New Costa Rica
Zealand Shanghai-China
20
Romania Luxembourg Belgium
3
22 Hungary Czech Republic Chile
Denmark Uruguay
Bulgaria Greece France
24
Poland Peru
Singapore
26 Slovak Republic

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Grade repetition (%)

Note: Grade repetition refers to the percentage of students who have repeated a grade at least once in primary or secondary school.
1. A significant relationship (p < 0.10) is shown by the solid line.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Table IV.1.1.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 35
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.5 •
Cost of grade repetition
Assuming that repeaters attain lower secondary education, at most…
Total annual cost per repeater (USD, PPPs)
Total annual costs, relative to total expenditure on primary and secondary education (%)
%
60 000 14
USD, PPPs

50 000 12

10
40 000

8
30 000
6
20 000
4

10 000 2

0 0
Percentage
0.0

0.0

3.5

1.2

1.9

2.7

3.4

4.2

4.9

3.6

4.0

3.8

4.7

5.4

7.6

7.5

8.0

8.6

13.3

11.9

17.1

34.3

20.3

32.9

28.4

27.6

36.1
of students
reporting that
Japan

Norway

Estonia

Iceland

Israel

United Kingdom

Slovenia

Poland

Czech Republic

Korea

Sweden

Finland

Denmark

New Zealand

Slovak Republic

Australia

Canada

Ireland

United States

Austria

Italy

Portugal

Germany

Spain

France

Netherlands

Belgium
they had repeated
a grade in primary,
lower secondary
or upper secondary
school

Note: Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the total annual cost, relative to total expenditure on primary and secondary education.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Tables IV.1.6 and IV.2.2.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

Horizontal stratification
In general, horizontal stratification is unrelated to a system’s average performance. The exception is that systems that
group students, within schools, for all classes based on their ability tend to have lower performance across all participating
countries and economies, after accounting for per capita GDP (partial correlation coefficient = -0.26). However,
between-school horizontal stratification is negatively related to equity in education opportunities. The impact of the
socio-economic status of students and/or schools on performance is stronger in school systems that sort students into
different tracks, where students are grouped into different tracks at an early age, where more students attend vocational
programmes, where more students attend academically selective schools, or where more students attend schools that
transfer low-performing students or students with behaviour problems to another school. Across OECD countries, 39% of
the variation in the impact of socio-economic status of students and schools on students’ mathematics performance can
be explained by differences in the ages at which students are selected into different programmes, even after accounting
for per capita GDP (Table IV.1.1).

The reason why the age at which stratification begins is closely associated with the impact of socio-economic status on
performance may be because the frequency and the nature of student selections/transitions differ between early- and
late-stratified systems. In systems that stratify students early, students might be selected more than once before the age
of 15. When students are older, more information on individual students is available, and decisions on selecting and
sorting students into certain tracks are thus better informed. In addition, students are more dependent upon their parents
and their parents’ resources when they are younger. In systems that stratify students early, parents with more advantaged
socio-economic status may be in a better position to promote their children’s chances than disadvantaged parents.
In systems where these decisions are taken at a later age, students play a larger role in deciding their own education
pathways, and teachers and parents have enough information to make more objective judgements.

As expected, schools that select students for admittance based on students’ academic performance tend to show better
school average performance, even after accounting for the socio-economic status and demographic background of
students and schools and various other school characteristics, on average across OECD countries (Table IV.1.12c).

36 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.6 •
School admissions policies and mathematics performance

Score-point difference between “always considered” and “sometimes/never considered”

Percentage of students Score-point difference between “always considered” and “sometimes/never considered”,
in schools whose principals after accounting for student socio-economic status
reported that “students’ records Score-point difference between “always considered” and “sometimes/never considered”,
of academic performance” after accounting for student and school socio-economic status
or “recommendations
of feeder schools” Score-point difference between “always considered” and “sometimes/never considered”,
is “always considered” after accounting for student and school socio-economic status
for admission and other school characteristics

Hungary 85
Turkey 43
Austria 71
Chinese Taipei 50
Qatar 50
Slovak Republic 53
Bulgaria 81
Shanghai-China 53
Hong Kong-China 94
Viet Nam 87
Czech Republic 58
Chile 39
Poland 19
Macao-China 78
Slovenia 29
Croatia 96
Lithuania 20
United Arab Emirates 70
Peru 30
Argentina 15
Latvia 29
Uruguay 27
France 31
Thailand 88
Mexico 51
Montenegro 59
Singapore 82
United Kingdom 28
Germany 62
Malaysia 55
Russian Federation 23
Jordan 36
OECD average 43
Switzerland 73
Estonia 38
Costa Rica 51
Israel 56
Romania 35
Greece 8
Iceland 21
Kazakhstan 46
Serbia 87
Italy 66
United States 36
Australia 44
Albania 60
Sweden 10
Brazil 21
Canada 39
Denmark 15
Tunisia 51
Portugal 37
Belgium 27
Indonesia 67
Colombia 43
Korea 67
Ireland 27
Japan 94
Spain 4
Norway 7
New Zealand 59
Finland 4
Luxembourg 72
Netherlands 97
Liechtenstein 79

-50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125

Score-point difference
Note: White symbols represent differences that are not statistically significant.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the score-point difference in mathematics between students in schools whose principals
reported that “students’ records of academic performance” or “recommendations of feeder schools” are “always considered” for admission and students
in schools where these two factors are “sometimes” or “never considered” for admission.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Tables IV.1.12c, IV.1.31 and IV.2.7.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 37
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

However, a school system’s performance overall is not better if it has a greater proportion of academically selective
schools. In fact, in systems with more academically selective schools, the impact of the socio-economic status of students
and schools on student performance is stronger (Table IV.1.1).

Trends in the relationship between mathematics performance and stratification

With the exception of Brazil and Turkey, in all countries and economies, students who entered primary school at age 5
or younger, or at age 6, 7 or 8 or older improved their performance between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 to a similar
degree. By contrast, in Brazil and Turkey, performance among students who had started primary school at age 8 or older
improved to a greater degree between 2003 and 2012 than that of students who had started school at younger ages
(Table IV.1.21). In Brazil, and as shown in Table IV.2.17 (see Chapter 2), more students in 2012 than in 2003 had started
school at age 8 or older. Combining these two results suggests that students who would have started school at age 7 in
2003 but did so at age 8 in 2012 were more likely to perform better than students who entered school at age 8 in 2003. It
may also be the case that in Turkey students who started school later were more likely to come from socio-economically
disadvantaged backgrounds and, as discussed in Volumes I and II, the greatest improvements in performance over the
period were observed among low-achieving and disadvantaged students, who are more likely to be those who entered
school at a later age in 2012 compared with their counterparts in 2003.

• Figure IV.1.7 •
Change between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 in the relationship between grade repetition
and mathematics performance
Score-point difference in mathematics performance between students
who had repeated a grade and those who hadn’t

2012 2003
160
Score-point difference

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
21
11

24
36

10
28
Uruguay -14
18

United States -17

Canada -17

Brazil -14

Australia -13

Indonesia -15
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
France
Portugal
Belgium
Greece
Finland
Poland
Hungary
Sweden
Latvia
Spain
Luxembourg

Macao-China
Russian Federation
OECD average 2003
Tunisia
Germany
Turkey
Switzerland
Denmark
Italy

Hong Kong-China
Austria
Mexico
Netherlands

Liechtenstein
New Zealand

Ireland

Thailand

Notes: The change in the score-point difference in mathematics performance between 2003 and 2012 (2012 - 2003) is shown above the country/economy
name. Only statistically significant differences are shown.
OECD average 2003 compares only OECD countries with comparable mathematics scores since 2003.
Only countries and economies with comparable data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the score-point difference in mathematics performance between students who reported in 2012
that they had repeated a grade and those who hadn’t.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Table IV.1.22.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

In PISA 2012, more than 20% of students in 16 countries and economies reported that they had repeated a grade;
11 of these countries and economies have comparable data for PISA 2003. On average across these 11 countries and
economies (Macao-China, Tunisia, Uruguay, Brazil, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands
and Germany), in 2003, the difference in mathematics performance between students who had repeated a grade
and those who hadn’t was 90 score points; by 2012, that difference had increased slightly, to 95 score points. This
performance advantage among those who had not repeated a grade increased in Macao-China, Luxembourg, Portugal,
Spain and France (and also in Sweden and Hungary, two countries with lower grade repetition rates). In this group of

38 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

countries and economies, either the penalty in performance for repeating a grade became larger during the period,
or low-achieving students were more likely to have been required to repeat a grade. The performance advantage
of non-repeaters decreased in Brazil and Uruguay, where either the adverse effects on performance of repeating a
grade weakened during the period, or these school systems held back more students with relatively higher scores
in mathematics in 2012 than they did in 2003. Among countries that rely less on grade repetition, the performance
advantage increased in Sweden and Hungary and narrowed by more than 10 points in Canada, the United States,
Indonesia and Australia (Figure IV.1.7; see also Table IV.2.18 in Chapter 2 for repetition rates).
Trends at different levels of the school system (grade levels or lower/upper secondary, for example) shed light on the
extent to which students are more – or less – prepared to enter the next level. Declining trends among 15-year-old
students in the 9th grade, for example, may signal an increasing challenge for 10th-grade teachers, as the students they
teach now are not as well prepared for 10th-grade coursework as students were a decade ago. Similarly, declining
trends in performance among upper secondary students indicate that it is becoming more difficult for school systems to
ensure that their students are ready to make the transition into tertiary education or the labour market. On average across
OECD countries8 and in most other countries and economies, the overall trends in mathematics performance discussed
in Volume I are seen in both lower and upper secondary education. In 2012, lower secondary students in Turkey, Brazil,
the Russian Federation, Portugal, Mexico, Poland, Thailand, Belgium, Indonesia, Tunisia, Germany and Latvia scored
higher in mathematics than did their counterparts in 2003, signalling that lower secondary 15-year-old students were
better prepared to enter upper secondary education in 2012 than in 2003. In Portugal, the Russian Federation, Turkey,
Italy, Korea and Mexico, 15-year-olds in upper secondary students in 2012 were better prepared to make the transition
into tertiary education or the labour market than their counterparts were in 2003 (Table IV.1.23).

Box IV.1.3. Trends in the relationship between resources, policies and practices

and mathematics performance
Educational resources, policies and practices interact in different ways with students’ mathematics performance.
The relationship between education policies and practices and students’ mathematics performance varies across
school systems; it may also vary across time with certain resources, policies or practices becoming more strongly
related to mathematics over time. The sections on trends discuss how certain resources, policies and practices have
become more strongly – or weakly – related to students’ mathematics performance. They compare the strength
of the relationship observed in PISA 2003 to that observed in PISA 2012, taking advantage of the fact that many
of the resources, policies and practices measured in PISA 2012 were also measured in PISA 2003. These factors
include vertical and horizontal stratification practices, learning time and assessment practices. The trends sections
in the following chapters describe the ways in which countries and economies have changed their stratification
practices (Chapter 2), their level of resources (Chapter 3), their autonomy and assessment/accountability policies
(Chapter 4), and their learning environments (Chapter 5).9

Changes in the relationship between resources, policies and practices described in this section should be
interpreted with caution as they may arise for a variety of reasons. One possible interpretation of the fact that a
particular policy or practice has become more strongly related to students’ mathematics performance is that it has
promoted student learning better in 2012 than in 2003. Alternative explanations are also possible, such as the
fact that better-performing students (or schools) may have chosen to adopt this policy during the period, or that
lower-performing students (or schools) chose not to. Changes in the relationship between resources, policies and
practices and mathematics performance between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 cannot be considered causal. They
shed light on ways in which a school system is evolving and need further analysis to reveal the processes and
nature of the change. Moreover, because PISA can only show whether the policy or practice has become more –
or less – strongly related to students’ mathematics performance among the particular students, schools and school
systems that adopted it, it is not possible to know whether the observed changes can be generalised to include
other school systems, schools and students (see endnote 10 for further details on interpreting trends results).

Nonetheless, these changes over time show where certain policies may have become more closely related to
student learning. They also highlight where certain challenges to excellence in performance remain or have become
more apparent, as in the case of those policies and practices that continue to be related to lower performance or
that have become even more strongly associated with poorer mathematics performance.

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 39
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

On average across OECD countries, there was no change in the performance advantage among students in higher
grades. In Luxembourg, however, the difference became more pronounced by PISA 2012: in 2003, students in the
modal grade outperformed those in the grades below (by an average of 30 score points) and scored lower than those in
the grades above (by an average of 80 points); by 2012 these differences had widened significantly to 46 and 89 points,
respectively. By contrast, in Belgium, Ireland, Thailand and Australia, these performance differences across grade levels
were smaller in 2012 than in 2003 (Table IV.1.23).
On average across OECD countries, the advantage in mathematics performance increased for students in schools that
do not use ability grouping compared with students in schools where ability grouping is practiced in some or all classes.
Students in schools where no ability grouping is practiced scored eight points higher in mathematics in 2012 compared
to their counterparts in 2003, while students in schools where ability grouping is practiced in some or all classes scored
lower in PISA 2012 than their counterparts in PISA 2003 did. This could mean that schools that do not group students
by ability became more effective than schools that use ability grouping. Alternatively, it could mean that schools that do
not group students by ability are increasingly those that select higher-performing students and so appear to have higher
average performance than schools that do practice ability grouping. The advantage of schools that do not use ability
grouping narrowed in Uruguay and Brazil, where, by 2012, it was no longer statistically significant, and in Luxembourg.
The performance advantage among students in schools that do not use ability grouping was observed in PISA 2012,
but not in PISA 2003, in Macao-China and Iceland, while the performance disadvantage observed among students who
attend schools that do not group students by ability disappeared by 2012 in Turkey and Belgium (Table IV.1.24).11

How learning outcomes are related to systems’ resource allocation

Adequate resources are crucial for providing students with high-quality opportunities to learn. At the same time, those
resources translate into better learning outcomes only if they are used efficiently. As Chapter 3 shows, school systems in the
countries and economies that participated in PISA vary in the amount of resources – including financial, human and material
resources and students’ learning time – that they invest in education. Research is inconclusive on the subject, but usually
shows a weak relationship between the quantity of educational resources and student performance, since more of the
variation in performance can be explained by the quality of resources and how these resources are used, particularly among
the industrialised countries (Fuller, 1987; Greenwald, Hedges and Laine, 1996; Buchmann and Hannum, 2001; Rivkin,
Hanushek and Kain, 2005; Murillo and Román, 2011; Hægeland, Raaum and Salvanes, 2012; Nicoletti and Rabe, 2012).

Financial resources
A first glance at PISA results gives the impression that high-income countries and economies – and those that are able to
and spend more on education – have better student performance. High-income countries and economies (defined here
as those with a per capita GDP above USD 20 000) have more resources to spend on education: high-income countries
and economies cumulatively spend, on average, USD 89 702 on each student from age 6 to 15, while countries that
are not considered to be in that group spend, on average, USD 25 286 (Tables IV.3.1 and IV.3.2 discussed in Chapter 3).
Moreover, high-income countries and economies have an average mathematics performance almost 70 score points
higher than that of countries whose per capita GDP is below the USD 20 000 threshold.
Yet the relationship among a country’s/economy’s income per capita, its level of expenditure on education per student,
and its PISA score is far more complex (Baker, Goesling and LeTendre 2002; OECD, 2012). While among countries and
economies whose cumulative expenditure per student is below USD 50 000 (the level of spending in the Czech Republic,
the Slovak Republic and Hungary), higher expenditure on education is predictive of higher PISA mathematics scores;
however, this is not the case among high-income countries and economies, which include most OECD countries. It seems
that for this latter group of countries and economies, factors other than wealth are better predictors of student performance.
Among the former group of countries and economies, systems with a cumulative expenditure of USD 10 000 higher
than other systems score an average of 27 points higher in the PISA mathematics assessment. For example, Jordan, with
a cumulative expenditure per student of USD 7 125, has an average PISA mathematics score of 386 points – 35 points
lower than Malaysia, which has a cumulative expenditure per student that is roughly USD 10 000 higher than that
of Jordan.
However, among those countries and economies whose cumulative expenditure per student is more than USD 50 000,
the relationship between spending per student and performance is no longer apparent, even after accounting for differences in
purchasing power. Thus, among these countries and economies, it is common to find some with substantially different levels
of spending per student yet similar mathematics performance. For example, the United States and the Slovak Republic
score at 481 points in mathematics, but the United States’ cumulative expenditure per student is more than double that
of the Slovak Republic. Also, countries and economies with similar levels of expenditure can perform very differently.

40 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.8 •
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and mathematics performance in PISA 2012
Countries/economies whose cumulative expenditure per student in 2012 was less than USD 50 000
Fitted line for these countries1
Countries/economies whose cumulative expenditure per student in 2012 was USD 50 000 or more
Fitted line for these countries2
650
Mathematics performance (score points)

Shanghai-China
600

Singapore
Korea
550 Poland
Czech Republic Finland Japan
Estonia Canada Netherlands Switzerland
Viet Nam Belgium Austria
Germany R² = 0.01
500
Latvia France
Portugal Norway
Croatia Spain Luxembourg
Malaysia United Denmark
Israel States
450 Turkey New Italy
Lithuania Zealand Sweden
Bulgaria Slovak Republic Iceland Australia
Thailand
Chile Hungary Ireland
Slovenia United Kingdom
400 Mexico
Jordan Brazil Montenegro
Peru Tunisia
350 Colombia

Uruguay
R² = 0.37
300

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Average spending per student
Note: Only countries and economies with available data are shown. from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousand USD, PPPs)
1. A significant relationship (p < 0.10) is shown by the solid line.
2. A non-significant relationship (p > 0.10) is shown by the dotted line.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Tables I.2.3a and IV.3.1.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

• Figure IV.1.9 •
Change between 2003 and 2012 in average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15
and change in mathematics performance
Countries whose cumulative expenditure per student in 2003 was less than USD 50 000
Countries whose cumulative expenditure per student in 2003 was USD 50 000 or more
35
Score-point difference in mathematics performance (2012 - 2003)

30
Mexico
25 Poland
Portugal
20
15 Italy

Korea Germany
10
5 Switzerland
Austria Japan
0
United States Spain
-5 Ireland
Norway
-10
Hungary
Denmark Belgium Netherlands
-15 Canada
Slovak Republic
-20 France
Czech Republic
Iceland Australia
-25
Finland
-30
-35 Sweden

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Change in average spending per student
from the age of 6 to 15 (2012 - 2003)
Note: Only countries with comparable data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 are shown. (in thousand USD, PPPs)
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Tables I.2.3b and IV.3.1.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 41
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

For example, Italy and Singapore both have a cumulative expenditure per student of roughly USD 85 000, but while Italy
scored 485 points in mathematics in PISA 2012, Singapore scored 573 points (Figure IV.1.8).

Trend data between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 shed light on how changes in spending per student relate to changes in
performance.12 As shown in Figure IV.1.9, the PISA data show no relationship between increases in expenditure and
changes in performance, not even for the countries where cumulative expenditure per student was less than USD 50 000 in
2003. Mexico, for example, is among the countries and economies with the greatest improvement in average mathematics
performance between 2003 and 2012, but its levels of expenditure remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2011.
Similar improvements in average mathematics performance were observed in Poland, where per‑student cumulative
expenditure nearly doubled during the period (Figure IV.1.9). Caution is required when interpreting the change in per-
student expenditure: if the spending is related to capital investment or other purposes that did not change the instructional
environment of the 15-year-olds assessed by PISA, then it would not be expected that the returns to these investments accrue
to the students whose performance is measured by PISA. Also, in some countries, an increase in per-student expenditure
might be a consequence of a decreasing student population rather than a real increase in investment in education.
Whatever the reason for the lack of a relationship between spending per student and learning outcomes, at least in the
countries and economies with larger education budgets, excellence in education requires more than money. How resources
are allocated is just as important as the amount of resources available to be allocated. One finding from PISA is that
high‑performing systems tend to prioritise higher salaries for teachers, especially in high-income countries (Figure IV.1.10).

• Figure IV.1.10 •
Teachers’ salaries and mathematics performance

Countries/economies with per capita GDP less than USD 20 000

Fitted line for these countries1
Countries/economies with per capita GDP over USD 20 000
Fitted line for these countries2

650
Mathematics performance (score points)

Shanghai-China
600
Canada
Singapore
Belgium Hong Kong-China
550 Macao- Korea
Czech Republic China Australia Japan
Norway
Slovak Republic Poland Finland Denmark Netherlands
Estonia R² = 0.09
Austria Slovenia Germany
500 France
Iceland New Zealand
Latvia Italy Portugal
Spain
Hungary United
Lithuania States Croatia Ireland
Sweden
450 Israel Luxembourg
Romania Greece
United Kingdom Malaysia
Bulgaria
Uruguay Thailand Chile
400 Montenegro
R² = 0.05

Argentina Tunisia Jordan

Indonesia Qatar Colombia
350 Peru

300

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Teachers’ salaries relative to per capita GDP (%)

Notes: Teachers’ salaries relative to per capita GDP refers to the weighted average of upper and lower secondary school teachers. The average is computed
by weighting teachers’ salaries for upper and lower secondary school according to the respective 15-year-old students’ enrolment (for countries and
economies with available information on both the upper and lower secondary levels).
Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
1. A non-significant relationship (p > 0.10) is shown by the dotted line.
2. A significant relationship (p < 0.10) is shown by the solid line.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Tables I.2.3a and IV.3.3.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

42 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

Among countries and economies whose per capita GDP is more than USD 20 000, including most OECD countries,
systems that pay teachers more (i.e. higher teachers’ salaries relative to national income per capita) tend to perform better
in mathematics. The correlation between these two factors across 33 high-income countries and economies is 0.30, and
the correlation is 0.40 across 32 high-income countries and economies excluding Qatar.13 In contrast, across countries
and economies whose per capita GDP is under USD 20 000, a system’s overall academic performance is unrelated to its
teachers’ salaries, possibly signalling that a host of resources (material infrastructure, instructional materials, transportation,
etc.) also need to be improved until they reach a certain threshold, after which improvements in material resources no longer
benefit student performance, but improvements in human resources (through higher teachers’ salaries, for example) do.14

Human resources
As with spending per student, the mere volume of human resources tends to be unrelated to the academic performance
or equity of school systems, after accounting for the level of national income.15 Of course, a school system that lacks
quality teachers, infrastructure and textbooks will almost certainly perform at lower levels than other systems. In fact, at
the school level, teacher shortage appears to be related to poorer performance in most countries. In 33 countries and
economies, schools where a higher share of principals reported that teacher shortages hinder learning tend to show
lower performance (see Table IV.3.10, in Chapter 3). However, the degree of teacher shortage is related to the amount
of other resources allocated to schools and to schools’ socio-economic intake. But even after accounting for the socio-
economic status and demographic background of students and schools and various other school characteristics, in
the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Switzerland schools whose principals reported that teacher shortages hinder learning
tend to show lower average performance (Table IV.1.12c). On average across OECD countries, almost half of the
performance differences between schools are accounted for jointly by school resources and students’ and schools’ socio-
economic status and demographic profile (Table IV.1.8a).16 This suggests that much of the impact of socio-economic
status on performance is mediated by the resources invested in schools.

Material resources
The educational resources available in a school tend to be related to the system’s overall performance, while the adequacy
of the physical infrastructure appears to be unrelated. After accounting for per capita GDP, 33% of the variation in
mathematics performance across OECD countries can be explained by differences in principals’ responses to questions
about the adequacy of science laboratory equipment, instructional materials (e.g. textbooks), computers for instruction,
Internet connectivity, computer software for instruction, and library materials (Table IV.1.2).

How resources are allocated to disadvantaged and advantaged schools is also related to systems’ levels of performance.
In higher performing systems, principals in socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools reported similar
levels of quality of physical infrastructure and schools’ educational resources, both across OECD countries and across
all countries and economies participated in PISA 2012 (Table IV.1.3). As shown in Figure IV.1.11, even after accounting
for per capita GDP, 30% of the variation in mathematics performance across OECD countries can be explained by the
level of similarities in principals’ report on school s’ educational resources between socio-economically advantaged and
disadvantaged schools.

At the school level, in 32 countries and economies, principals’ perceptions about the adequacy of the educational
resources in their school are positively related to the school’s average performance (Table IV.3.16, which is discussed in
Chapter 3). However, schools with more adequate educational resources are also those that have other characteristics
closely related to higher performance. But, even after accounting for the socio-economic status and demographic profile
of students and schools and various other school characteristics, in Qatar, Romania and Costa Rica schools with more
adequate resources tend to perform better (Table IV.1.12c). This suggests that much of the impact of socio-economic
status on performance is mediated by the resources invested in schools (Table IV.1.8a).

Time resources
The average learning time in regular mathematics lessons is positively related to student performance at the school level.
Even after accounting for the socio-economic status and demographic profile of students and schools and various other
school characteristics, in 15 countries and economies, schools with longer learning time in mathematics classes tend to
perform better in mathematics (Table IV.1.12c). However, at the system level, across all OECD countries and all countries
and economies that participated in PISA 2012 there is no clear pattern between a system’s overall mathematics performance
and whether students in that system spend more time in regular mathematics classes or not (Table IV.1.2).17 Since learning
outcomes are the product of both the quantity and the quality of instruction time, this suggests that cross-system differences
in the quality of instruction time blur the relationship between the quantity of instruction time and student performance.

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 43
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.11 •
Systems’ allocation of educational resources and mathematics performance

Before accounting for per capita GDP

Fitted line before accounting for per capita GDP1
After accounting for per capita GDP
Fitted line after accounting for per capita GDP1

650 Across OECD countries

1 Austria
Mathematics performance (score points)

Czech Republic
Denmark
600 France
Iceland
Italy
Portugal Korea
Slovenia Switzerland
550 Estonia
Spain Poland Germany
Japan Netherlands
New Zealand

Canada
500 Australia Belgium United Finland
Ireland Kingdom
1
United States Norway
Sweden Hungary
450 R² = 0.30
Slovak Republic
Turkey
R² = 0.33 Israel Greece
Luxembourg

Chile
Mexico
400

350
GREATER
EQUITY

1.5 1.0 0.5 0 -0.5

Equity in resource allocation (index-point difference)

650 Across all participating countries and economies

2 Austria
Mathematics performance (score points)

Lithuania
Czech Republic Luxembourg Shanghai-China
Denmark Portugal
600 France Slovenia Macao-China
Japan Hong Kong-
Hungary Spain Singapore
Chinese
Iceland Switzerland
Canada Taipei Belgium China
Italy Russian Federation Poland Korea
550 Latvia Ireland Netherlands
Estonia R² = 0.28
Viet Germany
Australia Nam 2 R² = 0.19
New Zealand Finland
United Kingdom
500 3 Croatia
Thailand United States

Mexico Chile Malaysia Norway

Costa Rica Turkey Serbia
450 Kazakhstan Slovak Republic

Montenegro
Brazil
Indonesia Tunisia Qatar
Peru Jordan
400 Colombia 3 Bulgaria
Greece
Argentina Uruguay Israel
Sweden
United Arab Emirates Romania
350
GREATER
EQUITY

1.5 1.0 0.5 0 -0.5

Equity in resource allocation (index-point difference)

Note: Equity in resource allocation refers to the difference in the index of quality of schools’ educational resources between socio-economically
advantaged and disadvantaged school.
1. A significant relationship (p < 0.10) is shown by the solid line.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Table IV.1.3.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

44 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

Some schools offer supplementary mathematics lessons in addition to those provided during regular school hours.
Schools often decide to offer these after-school lessons because their students need more time to learn mathematics. Not
surprisingly then, the schools that offer after-school mathematics lessons are often those with lower average performance
in mathematics (Tables IV.1.8b, IV.1.8c, IV.1.12b and IV.1.12c). However, at the system level and across all OECD
countries and also across all participating countries and economies, the proportion of students in schools with after-
school mathematic lessons tends to be unrelated to the system’s overall performance level (Table IV.1.2).

Schools whose students spend more hours on homework or other study set by teachers tend, on average, to perform
better, even after accounting for the socio-economic status and demographic background of students and schools and
various other school characteristics (Tables IV.1.8b, IV.1.8c, IV.1.12b and IV.1.12c). This is not an obvious finding, since
one could expect that lower-performing students spend more time doing homework. However, there may be other
factors, such as higher-performing schools requiring more homework from their students. At the system level, the average
number of hours that students spend on homework or other study set by their teachers tends to be unrelated to systems’
overall performance level (Table IV.1.2).

In summary, at the school level, there is some relationship between the time students spend learning in and after
school and their performance, but no clear pattern of this relationship is observed at the system level. This might be
because of differences across systems in how the time is spent and how much students learn within a given amount of
time. In addition, the nature and purpose of after-school lessons are not always the same. In some schools and school
systems, after-school lessons are provided mainly to support struggling students, while in others they are mainly for
enrichment.

Across all countries and economies, school systems where schools tend to offer more creative extracurricular activities
(i.e. band, orchestra or choir; school plays or musicals; and art clubs or art activities) tend to show better overall
performance in mathematics, even after accounting for per capita GDP; but this relationship is not observed across
OECD countries (Table IV.1.2). In 47 countries and economies, schools that offer more creative extracurricular activities
tend to perform better in mathematics (see Table IV.3.31, discussed in Chapter 3). However, the extent to which
schools offer these activities is also related to schools’ socio-economic profile and other characteristics. But, even after
accounting for the socio-economic status and demographic profile of students and schools and various other school
characteristics, in Qatar, Viet Nam, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Estonia and Uruguay schools that offer more
of these activities tend to perform better in mathematics (Table IV.1.12c) (Box IV.1.4 offers more details on the policies
and programmes implemented recently by Israel18).

As shown in Volume II, students who attended pre-primary education tend to perform better at the age of 15 than those
who did not attend pre-primary education. This relationship is also apparent at the school level. In 17 countries and
economies, schools with more students who had attended pre-primary education for more than one year tend to show
better average performance (Table IV.1.12c). At the system level, across all PISA participating countries and economies,
there is also a relationship between the proportion of students who had attended pre-primary education for more than
one year and systems’ overall performance in mathematics. Some 32% of the variation in mathematics performance
across all countries and economies can be explained by the difference in the percentage of students who attended
pre‑primary education for more than one year, after accounting for per capita GDP (Table IV.1.2). However, across
OECD countries, there is no clear relationship.

Trends in the relationship between mathematics performance and educational

resources
As discussed in Chapter 3, all but 11 countries reduced their student-teacher ratios between 2003 and 2012 (Table IV.3.35).
The relationship between the student-teacher ratio and the mathematics performance of schools was weak in 2003 and
remained so in 2012. In Tunisia, the negative relationship between student-teacher ratios and performance observed in
2003 – whereby students who attend schools with smaller student-teacher ratios perform better – weakened by 2012.
Conversely, the positive relationship between student-teacher ratios and students’ mathematics performance – whereby
students in schools with more favourable student-teacher ratios actually score lower - strengthened in Italy during the
period and remained positive and moderately strong in Liechtenstein, Belgium, the Netherlands and Hong Kong-China.
In all other countries and economies, the relationship between the student-teacher ratio and student performance in
mathematics was weak in both 2003 and 2012 (Figure IV.1.12).

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 45
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.12 •
Change between 2003 and 2012 in the relationship between students’ mathematics performance
and student-teacher ratios in their schools

2012 2003
0.7
Correlation between mathematics performance and student-teacher ratio

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0.19

0.19
0.08

0.15

Luxembourg -0.08

Korea -0.19

0.20

0.12

0.21

0.29
Liechtenstein
Belgium
Netherlands
Italy
Hong Kong-China
Japan
Portugal
Macao-China
Ireland
Germany
Latvia
Poland
Greece

Canada

OECD average 2003

New Zealand
Russian Federation
Denmark
Switzerland
Spain
Czech Republic
Finland
Sweden
Iceland
Hungary
United States
Australia
Thailand
Norway
Uruguay
Slovak Republic
Tunisia
Austria
Brazil
Turkey
Notes: The change in the correlation between mathematics performance and schools’ student-teacher ratios between 2003 and 2012 (2012 - 2003) is shown
above the country/economy name. Only statistically significant differences are shown.
OECD average 2003 compares only OECD countries with comparable mathematics scores and student-teacher ratios since 2003.
Only countries and economies with comparable data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the correlation between students' mathematics performance and the student-teacher ratio in
their schools in 2012.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Table IV.1.25.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

Between 2003 and 2012, there was an increase in the amount of time students spend in mathematics classes (see
Table IV.3.46 in Chapter 3); yet the relationship between learning time and mathematics performance was weak in both
PISA 2003 and PISA 2012: in both PISA assessments, students exposed to more mathematics instruction did not perform
better than students exposed to less mathematics instruction. This could be because, in some countries and economies,
low-performing students tend to spend more time in mathematics classes to catch up with their peers; in others, higher-
performing students may spend more time in mathematics lessons because they enjoy the subject more. In both cases,
students may benefit from more time spent in the classroom, but the average relationship is negligible. The relationship
was weak and positive in PISA 2003 and became stronger in PISA 2012 in Thailand, Japan and Turkey, meaning that
students in these countries who spent more time in mathematics classes performed even better in mathematics in 2012
than their peers did in 2003. This relationship was also positive, but weakened during the period, in Greece and Belgium
(Table IV.1.26).

One notable trend concerning educational resources was the widening of the performance gap between students who
had attended pre-primary school and those who had not. In 2003, the average advantage in mathematics performance
among students who had attended pre-primary education compared to those 15-year-olds who had not was 40 points;
by 2012 the difference had grown to 51 score points. Students who had not attended pre-primary education are at an

46 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

increasing disadvantage compared to their peers who had, and this disadvantage widened by more than 25 points in the
Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Finland, Spain, Greece, Thailand and Luxembourg. Participation in
pre-primary education increased significantly in all of these countries and economies, and by more than five percentage
points in Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal (see Table IV.3.50 in Chapter 3), signalling not only that enrolments grew,
but that the relationship between attendance and later performance strengthened. In these countries and economies,
where the relationship between attendance in pre-primary school and students’ mathematics performance grew stronger,
attendance in pre-primary school may have improved students’ readiness for school or determined students’ paths
through education to a greater degree in 2012 than it did in 2003.

However, this trend can also signal that, despite an expansion in enrolments in pre-primary programmes, the group
of students who do not attend pre-primary schools are increasingly from socio-economically and academically
disadvantaged backgrounds. In fact, from 2003 to 2012 there was an increase in the socio-economic disparity between
students who had attended pre-primary education and those who had not. This means that the students who could benefit
the most from these programmes, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are those less likely to participate in them.
This growing socio-economic divide between students who had attended pre-primary education and those who hadn’t
is wide in the Slovak Republic and is also observed in Greece, Luxembourg, Poland, Finland, the Russian Federation and
Latvia; it narrowed, however, in Macao-China, Germany, Korea, Uruguay and Portugal during the period (Figures IV.1.13
and IV.1.14).

• Figure IV.1.13 •
Change between 2003 and 2012 in the relationship between students’ mathematics performance
and their attendance in pre-primary school
Score-point difference in mathematics performance between students who reported that they had attended
pre-primary education (ISCED 0) for more than one year and those who hadn’t

2012 2003

120
Score-point difference

100

0
74

Switzerland -34
54
28

28
31
Turkey -28
11

Mexico -15

Brazil -20
Slovak Republic
France
Belgium
Hong Kong-China

Czech Republic
Greece
Denmark
Italy
Austria
New Zealand
Germany
Thailand
Spain

OECD average 2003

Uruguay
Finland
Poland
Iceland
Sweden
Australia
Indonesia
Macao-China
Luxembourg
Netherlands

Japan
Portugal
United States

Norway
Russian Federation
Tunisia
Canada
Korea
Ireland
Latvia

Notes: The change in the score-point difference in mathematics performance between 2003 and 2012 (2012 - 2003) is shown above the country/economy
name. Only statistically significant differences are shown.
OECD average 2003 compares only OECD countries with comparable mathematics scores since 2003.
Only countries and economies with comparable data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the score-point difference in mathematics performance between students who reported in
2012 that they had attended pre-primary education (ISCED 0) for more than one year and those who hadn’t.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Table IV.1.27.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV © OECD 2013 47
1
How Resources, Policies And Practices Are Related To Education Outcomes

• Figure IV.1.14 •
Change between 2003 and 2012 in the relationship between students’ socio-economic status
and their attendance at pre-primary school
Index-point difference in the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status between students who reported
that they had attended pre-primary education (ISCED 0) for more than one year and those who hadn’t

2012 2003
1.4
Index-point difference

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2
Macao-China -0.45

Korea -0.20
Germany -0.36

0.21
0.32

0.22

0.31

0.06

0.34
Portugal -0.17
Uruguay -0.19

0.38

0.54
Japan

Canada
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Ireland
Latvia
Poland
Italy
Sweden
Australia
Thailand
Norway
United States
Russian Federation
Denmark
Spain
Finland
New Zealand
OECD average 2003
Brazil
Hong Kong-China
Luxembourg

Switzerland
Belgium
Iceland
France
Indonesia
Greece
Mexico
Austria
Slovak Republic
Tunisia
Turkey
Notes: The change in the index-point difference in the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status performance between 2003 and 2012 (2012 - 2003)
is shown above the country/economy name. Only statistically significant differences are shown.
OECD average 2003 compares only OECD countries with comparable values on the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status since 2003.
Only countries and economies with comparable data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the index-point difference in the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status between
students who reported in 2012 that they had attended pre-primary education (ISCED 0) for more than one year and those who hadn’t.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database, Table IV.1.27.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932957403

Box IV.1.4. Improving in PISA: Israel

Israel’s performance in PISA has improved in all subject matters. Since PISA 2006, for example, it has improved
by an average of 4.2 points per year in mathematics and 2.8 points per year in science; since 2000, the country’s
score in reading has improved by an average of 3.7 points per year. Average performance in mathematics improved
from 442 points in PISA 2006 to 466 points in PISA 2012 and reading performance improved from 452 points in
2000 to 486 points in 2012. At the same time, the proportion of students who score below proficiency Level 2
shrank considerably and the proportion of those who score at or above proficiency Level 5 increased. In 2006,
for example, 42% of students did not attain proficiency Level 2 in mathematics; by 2012, that proportion had
decreased to 34%. The share of top performers in mathematics grew from 6% to 9% over the same period.

Israel’s school system is arranged along six different education streams, reflecting the cultural diversity of the
country. Three of these streams cater to the Hebrew-speaking community (secular schools, religious schools and
ultra-orthodox schools), and three cater to the Arab-speaking community (schools for the Arab, Druze and Bedouin
minorities). For most streams (all but the ultra-orthodox), the Ministry of Education has high capacity to influence
and monitor the type and quality of teaching and learning through resource allocation, regulations and guidelines.
Only ultra-orthodox schools, which are only partially funded by the state, often do not follow the programmes and
policies established by the Ministry.
...

48 © OECD 2013 What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices – Volume IV
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
"Vallan mainiosti. Kuningas otti meidät suopeasti vastaan ja
vahvisti kaikki yliopiston vanhat etuoikeudet."

"Yliopisto saa siis rauhassa jatkaa työtään ja Ranska on päässyt

pitkäaikaisista vihollisistaan. Kun loppu on hyvä, niin kaikki on hyvä.
Mutta haluaisinpa nyt kuulla jotakin yliopiston elämästä. Ovatko
tiedonlähteet kummunneet yhtä tasaisesti näinä koettelemusten
aikoina?"

"Kyllä muutoin, paitsi että opiskelijoita on kalliin ajan tähden ollut

vähemmän. Melkoinen osa Parisia jäi parina viime vuonna autioksi ja
jonkunkerran raivosi köyhemmän väestön keskuudessa todellinen
nälänhätä. Ja Parisin ympärillä liikkui laumoittain susia,
tunkeusivatpa joskus muurien sisällekin, syöden elävältä muutamia
ihmisiä."

"Parisista on siis kaikonnut se iloinen ja keveä elämä, mikä siellä

vallitsi vielä parikymmentä vuotta sitten, jolloin minäkin siellä
talvikauden viivähdin. Se ei ollut vierasta yliopiston oppineille
isillekään, sillä heistähän laulettiin … kuinkas se nyt mahtoi
ollakaan…"

"Madame la Haute science a Paris s'en vint, ce me semble,

boir les vins de son celier",

(Rouva Korkia-oppisuus käy Pariisiss' asioitaan: juomassa

viinit kellaristaan.)

auttoi hänen muistiaan mestari Olavi.

"Niin juuri, ja myöskin minä kuulin siellä sanottavan, että moni,

joka on lähtenyt hakemaan Parisista seitsemää taidetta, on niiden
sijasta tavannut siellä seitsemän kuolemansyntiä."

"Seitsemän kuolemansyntiä ovat saaneet kaikota muurien

ulkopuolelle, sillä tavernien ja muiden ilopaikkojen lukumäärä väheni
viime vuosina puoleen ja entisten iloisten viisujen sijasta laulettiin
Parisissa:

Morte nihil melius, vita nil peius iniqva

(Ei parempaa kuin kuolema, eik' elämää poloisempaa),

mutta nyt alkaa jo elämä palata ennalleen ja pian ovat nuo

seitsemän kuolemansyntiäkin jälleen muurien sisäpuolella."

"Hm, hm, sellaistahan se on. Mutta sinä, nepos, teit otollisen työn,
tullessasi tervehtimään minua vanhusta, jonka elämä pian
ohjaksistaan jättää. Kuinka luonnistui muutoin matkasi ja tulitko
Ruotsin kautta?"

"Ei, vaan suoraan Lyypekistä."

"Aijai, kuinka varomatonta! Eivätkö Lyypekissä kertoneet, että

vesillämme risteilee jälleen vitaliveljeksiä. Varsinkin eräs Iivari
Fleming liikkuu kaikkialla laivoineen, ryöstäen kauppa-aluksia ja
hätyyttäen rantakaupunkeja. Me emme toistaiseksi ole voineet
hänelle mitään, sillä Raaseporin herra suojelee häntä julkisesti."

"No miksi häntä ei saateta rangaistukseen sellaisesta teosta?"

"Raaseporin herraako? Kukapa hänet saattaisi, sillä hän hallitsee

linnaansa täysin itsenäisesti, piittaamatta kenenkään käskyistä.
Sitäpaitsi hän on uuden valtionhoitajamme setä. Meillähän ei
nimittäin enää hallitsekaan Eerik-kuningas."
"Kuulin siitä jo tulomatkallani sekä samoin Engelbrektin murhasta.
Kamala ja väärä teko!"

"Niin, herra paratkoon" — ja vanhus ryhtyi seikkaperäisemmin

selvittämään kotimaassa sattuneita mullistuksia, joista mestari
Olavilla oli yhtä vaillinaiset tiedot kuin hänellä itsellään Ranskan
maan asioista.

Kun oli tämän jälkeen kestänyt jonkun aikaa vaitioloa, kummankin

istuessa nojatuolissaan omiin mietteisiinsä vaipuneena, kohotti
mestari Olavi päätään ja virkkoi hiukan arkaillen:

"Sanoit, eno, minun äsken sisään astuessani uneksuneesi äidistäni,

joka näyttäysi sinulle, kädessään ruusu. Tullessani piispansalin halki
sattuivat silmäni sinun vaakunaasi, josta ajatukseni johtuivat omaan
vaakunaani ja siinä näkyvään ruusuun."

"Ja nyt haluaisit kuulla tuon ruusun historian", keskeytti hänet

vanhus, "sekä samalla saada tarkempia tietoja syntyperästäsi. Halusi
on enemmän kuin kohtuullinen ja minä olen liian pitkään siitä
vaiennut. Mutta siitä on minua pidättänyt aina jonkunlainen arkuus."

Hän oli hetken aikaa vaiti, pää käden varaan nojautuneena,

kysyen sitten hiljaisella äänellä:

"Eihän sinulle suinkaan ole pitkään aikaan enää ollut mikään

salaisuus se, että minä en ole sinun enosi, vaan isäsi, vaikka me
hyvin ymmärrettävistä syistä olemmekin olleet pakotetut karttamaan
tätä armasta nimitystä?"

Kun mestari Olavi oli vastannut myöntävästi, jatkoi piispa

harvakseen ja matalalla äänellä:
"Mutta äidistäsi sinulla on ani vähän, jos ollenkaan, muistoja.
Tahdonpa nyt kertoa hänestä. Niihin muistoihin sisältyvät minun
elämäni samalla sekä ihanimmat että raskaimmat hetket."

Hän vaikeni jälleen, kooten muistojaan. Kun hän jatkoi, oli hänen
äänensä käynyt pehmeäksi ja hartaaksi.

"Kuten tiedät, toimin minä nuoruudessani jonkun aikaa

maaseutupappina, ennenkuin lähdin ulkomaille opintojani
jatkamaan. Heti papiksi vihittyä määrättiin minut paimeneksi siihen
seurakuntaan, jonka kirkontorni näkyy tuolta lahden takaa.
Muutamia päiviä seurakuntaan tuloni jälkeen kutsuttiin minut
antamaan viimeistä voitelua eräälle köyhtyneelle asemiehelle, joka
asui Rungon talossa minun lähimmässä naapuristossani. Kun minä
olin toimittanut hänelle tämän viimeisen palveluksen ja kuolema
alkoi tehdä tuloaan, pyysi hän minua jollakin tavoin huoltamaan
hänen ainoaa tytärtään, joka nyt jäi kokonaan orvoksi, sillä hänen
äitinsä oli kuollut jo aikaisemmin. Tytär, joka itki isänsä vuoteen
vieressä, oli seitsentoistavuotias, ja kääntäessäni katseeni häneen,
huomasin minä, että hän oli harvinaisen kaunis. Kun isä oli saatettu
hautaan, seisoi tytär yksinään maailmassa, murheissaan ja
avutonna. Pian tulivat sitten isän velkamiehet ja tahtoivat riistää
orvolta kodin. Minä aioin ensinnä ottaa hänet pappilaan, sillä
tarvitsin emännöitsijää. Mutta kohta kuitenkin peräysin
aikomuksestani, sillä katsoin vaaralliseksi elää joka päivä niin kauniin
ja kukoistavan olennon lähimmässä läheisyydessä, ja minä olin
päättänyt pysyä puhtaana hengellisellä urallani. Yhtä paljon en
hänen itsensäkään tähden tahtonut tehdä hänestä tavallista
papinforsiaa. Niin ollen tyydytin saamamiehet omilla varoillani ja
kehotin Elinaa asumaan eteenkinpäin kotonaan, kunnes talo saisi
jälleen isännän.
"Näin luulin kaikki järjestäneeni parhain päin, mutta pian tulin
huomaamaan, että kiusausta vastaan ei ihminen ole koskaan kyllin
lujasti turvattu, varsinkin ryhtyessään omin voimin sitä vastaan
taistelemaan. Pitäessäni huolta Elinan perintötilasta oli minun pakko
tavata häntä usein ja kerta kerralta syöpyi hänen kuvansa yhä
syvemmälle minun sieluuni. Kauhistuksella huomasin, että ajatukseni
keskellä pyhiä toimituksiakin karkasivat hänen luokseen. Silloin aloin
minä todenteolla taistella kiusausta vastaan, rukoillen, paastoten ja
syventyen pyhän kirjan tutkimiseen. Mutta kun minä luulin jo
masentaneeni luvattoman taipumukseni, palasi se kahta
voimakkaampana niin kohta kun minä jouduin hänen lähelleen ja
kuulin hänen heleän äänensä tai näin hänen ihanat silmänsä. Niin,
tarvitsipa minun vain etäältä nähdä vilahus hänen notkeasta
vartalostaan tai kuulla hänen laulavan, kun sydämeni jo oli
ilmitulessa ja veri kohisi kuumeisena suonissani. Kuukausia kesti
minun epätoivoinen taisteluni, unettomat yöni ja harhailuni. Sitten —
kuinka se oikeastaan tapahtui, sitä minun on vaikea selittää, mutta
eräänä ihanana kesäehtoona, jolloin satakieli lauloi tammistossa
kirkon luona, löysin minä itseni hänen luotaan ja hän lepäsi minun
sylissäni. Tämän jälkeen en minä enää yrittänytkään taistella
vastaan, vaan antausin kokonaan rakkaudelleni. Minun pitäisi sanoa
syntiselle rakkaudelleni, mutta sitä minä en voi tehdä, sillä tuntuu
että minä sillä loukkaisin sen lempeän ja viattoman olennon muistoa.
Me antausimme siis kokonaan toisillemme ja niin livahti vuosi
ohitsemme kuin ihana unelma."

Nuoruusmuistojensa riuduttamana vaikeni vanhus tässä toviksi

eikä Olavi hennonut häntä kysymyksillään häiritä.

"Olkoon, että meidän suhteemme oli luvaton ja synnillinen", jatkoi

hän jälleen, "ja sitähän se pyhän kirkkomme kannalta kieltämättä
onkin, mutta siitä huolimatta kangastaa se muistossani kuin
lyhytaikainen, ihana unelma. Siitä havahduimme me ensi kerran
todellisuuteen, kun Elina synnytti pojan. Vaikeasti ratkaistavaksi
kysymykseksi tuli nyt, kuinka meidän oli tämän jälkeen järjestettävä
elämämme. Minä en virkani ja kutsumukseni takia voinut mennä
avioliittoon hänen kanssaan ja toisaalta oli Elinalla vaara tulla
ihmisten silmissä halveksituksi. Taistelut ja unettomat yöt alkoivat
minulle jälleen. Näihin aikoihin ilmestyi paikkakunnalle eräs
vapaasukuinen herra Arveste, joka oli siihen saakka ollut ulkomailla
sotapalveluksessa. Hän näytti mielistyvän Elinaan ja kosi häntä
jonkun ajan kuluttua. Kun herra Arveste tuntui kunnon mieheltä,
näytti tämä minusta Jumalan lähettämältä pelastukselta. Käytyäni
sydämessäni vielä viimeisen ankaran taistelun kehotin minä Elinaa
antamaan myöntävän vastauksen, sillä tietäessäni hänellä olevan
suojelijan saatoin minä keveämmällä mielellä lähteä ulkomaille.
Poikamme lupasin minä ottaa kasvattaakseni, niin pian kuin hän
kykenisi äidistä luopumaan. Alistuen välttämättömyyteen antoi Elina
suostumuksensa ja sydän raskaana erosimme me toisistamme,
luvaten elämämme loppuun muistaa toisiamme rukouksissa.

"Kohta sen jälkeen lähdin minä ulkomaille ja viivyin vuosia Pragin

yliopiston oppisaleissa. Oleskeltuani siellä neljä vuotta, joiden
kuluessa sain ani vähän tietoja kotimaasta eikä ollenkaan niistä,
joiden luo sydämeni oli jäänyt, sekä saatuani maisterivihkimyksen,
alkoi maa yhtäkkiä polttaa jalkaini alla ja minä päätin viivyttelemättä
ja suorinta tietä lähteä kotiin. Nukkuessani sitten viimeistä yötäni
Pragissa näin minä unissani Elinan — omituista kyllä ensi kerran koko
poissaoloaikanani. Kuin henkäys kulki hän minun ohitseni ja kehotti
minua rientämään kotimaahan. Tavaton levottomuus täytti sydämeni
ja minusta oli tukalaa, että öiksi täytyi pysähtyä majataloihin. Kun
minua eräässä sellaisessa kehotettiin odottamaan siksi kuin paikalle
kertyisi useampia samalle suunnalle matkustavia, että kulku edessä
olevan metsäseudun halki olisi turvallisempi, en minä mitenkään
malttanut pysyä alallani, vaan lähdin yksin taipaleelle ja jouduin
rosvojen käsiin, jotka ryöstivät minut puti puhtaaksi. Siitä huolimatta
jatkoin minä matkaani luostarien avulla eteenpäin ja pääsin viimein
Danzigiin, jossa onneksi tapasin kotiin lähtevän turkulaisen laivan.
Itämerellä pidätti meitä vastatuuli kokonaista kaksi vuorokautta. Kun
minä kolmantena yönä, kauan valvottuani ja tuskailtuani ja
rukoiltuani Jumalaa ja Pyhää Kristoforosta armahtamaan meitä
myötätuulella, heittäysin pitkälleni ahtaassa kojussani, näin kohta
horroksiin vaivuttuani jälleen Elinan. Kuin tuulen henkäys kulki hän
nytkin ohitseni, mutta tällä kertaa oli hänen kädessään ruusunkukka,
hänen kasvonsa olivat kuoleman kalpeat ja hätääntyneet ja ohitse
rientäessään lausui hän minulle yhden ainoan sanan: myöhästynyt!

"Herramme yksin tietää, kuinka suuressa tuskassa minä sen yön

vietin. Aamulla vihdoin armahti Jumala, tuuli kääntyi suotuisaksi ja
me pääsimme Turkuun. Saatuani lainatuksi ratsun riensin minä päätä
suoraa Piikkiöön. Mitä lähemmäs Runkoa minä tulin, sitä
suuremmaksi kasvoi pelkoni ja hätäni. Herra Arveste otti minut
yrmysti vastaan ja viittasi mitään puhumatta vuoteeseen. Siellä
lepäsi Elina liikkumatonna, kasvoillaan kalpea kuoleman rauha.
Hänen kädessään oli vielä tuoksuva ruusunkukka. Kun minä sinun
syntymisesi muistoksi olin hänen ikkunansa alle istuttanut
ruusupensaan, arvasin minä kohta, että hän ennen viimeiseen uneen
vaipumistaan oli tahtonut kukan tuosta pensaasta ja siten
toimittanut minulle viimeisen tervehdyksensä. Ja tämä on nyt sen
ruusun historia, joka on sinun vaakunaasi kuvattu.

"Haikea suru täytti sydämeni, etten ollut ehtinyt hänen silmiään

sulkemaan, ja kuumia kyyneleitä vuodattaen polvistuin minä hänen
vuoteensa viereen, rukoillen siinä kauan. Enkä sen jälkeen ole
laannut rukoilemasta hänen sielulleen rauhaa ja hänen muistonsa
vaatimana minä toistakymmentä vuotta sitten tein retkeni pyhälle
haudalle."

Mielenliikutus sai piispan vaikenemaan. Mestari Olavi tunsi myös

itsensä syvästi liikutetuksi.

"Sinua en tavannut Rungolla", jatkoi piispa, "vaan sain tietää, että

Elina oli vähän aikaa naimisissa oltuaan toimittanut sinut sisareni
Margaretan hoitoon, sillä herra Arveste ei ollut suvainnut
lapsipuoltaan. Riensin siis suoraapäätä sisareni luo, saadakseni
syleillä sinua."

"Muistan elävästi, kun sinä astuit sisälle, minun parasta aikaa

istuessani tätini polvella", keskeytti mestari Olavi vilkkaasti.

"Hm, entäs muistatko ollenkaan äitiäsi?"

"Muistan erään hänen vierailunsa, kaiketi viimeisen, tätini luona.

Puhellessaan tädin kanssa purskahti hän tuon tuostakin itkemään."

"Niin, mikäli kuulin, on hän ollut onneton avioliitossaan, sillä herra

Arveste ei näytä olleenkaan niin kelpo mies kuin me alussa luulimme.
Äitisi, se armas olento, kuihtui vähitellen ja synnytettyään sinun
nuoremman sisarpuolesi uinahti hän pois täältä murheen laaksosta.
Rauha hänen sielulleen!"

Piispa teki ristinmerkin, jonka jälkeen syntyi pitempi äänettömyys.

"Minun tekisi mieleni kysyä sinulta yhtä asiaa, isäni", katkasi

vihdoin mestari Olavin ääni hiljaisuuden.
"Kysy, poikani!" kehotti piispa.

"Eikö sinussa kokemiesi perusteella ole koskaan herännyt

epäilyksiä caelibati-lain oikeutusta vastaan? Meidän nuorten
oppineiden kesken on siitä Parisissa usein keskusteltu ja monet ovat
sitä sangen jyrkästi tuominneet."

"Paljon olen minäkin, poikani, sillä asialla päätäni vaivannut ja

tutkinut sitä sekä pyhän kirjan että kirkkoisien kirjotusten valossa.
Yhteen aikaan oli sydämeni niin suuressa kapinassa sitä vastaan,
että minä aioin julkisesti nousta sitä vastaan. Mutta … häpeäkseni
täytyy minun tunnustaa, ettei minulla ollut siihen tarpeellista voimaa
ja rohkeutta. Pyhä katolinen kirkkomme on siksi mahtava valta, että
se ruhjoo armottomasti sen, joka asettuu sitä vastaan. Siitä on
viimeisenä pelottavana esimerkkinä Pragin aikuisen ystäväni Juhana
Hussin kohtalo."

"Mutta…"

"Arvaan kyllä, mitä sinä aiot sanoa", ehätti piispa keskeyttämään

mestari Olavin, "että nimittäin totuus on uskallettava kaikissa oloissa
tuoda esille ja että totuutta ei maailman mahtavinkaan valta pysty
kukistamaan. Niin kyllä, sen olen tuhannesti lausunut itselleni, mutta
sittenkin … niin, yksinkertaisesti sanoen: Herramme ei ole kutsunut
minua siihen toimeen, sillä minä en ole sellaista rakennetta kuin oli
esimerkiksi Huss ja jommoisia uudistajain tulee olla. Jos tämä
caelibati-laitos on ihmisistä lähtenyt ja väärä, niin Herra on kyllä
löytävä aseen särkeäksensä sen."

Tässä keskeytti piispan puheen emännöitsijä, joka tuli

ilmottamaan, että ateria on valmiina. Kun he nousivat lähteäkseen
ruokahuoneeseen, jätti mestari Olavi tuon vakavan keskusteluaiheen
ja virkkoi iloisesti:

"Käynpä tosiaankin suurella halulla kotoiseen pöytään, päästäkseni

käsiksi oikeaan Suomen ruisleipään ja voimakkaaseen Turun olueen.
Kun saa vuosikaudet nauttia vehnäleipää ja viinejä, syntyy ikäänkuin
kova hiuka kaiken kotoisen puoleen."

Aterialta noustua lähtivät he kävelemään linnan ympäristöön.

Aurinko alkoi jo laskea ja ilta oli harvinaisen ihana. Kuin peilissä
kuvastuivat salmen pinnassa kukkeat rantalehdot ja mannermaan
puolelta kaikuivat karjankellot ja paimenten huhuilut. Pysähtyessään
vallinharjalle ihailemaan kesäillan armautta, puhkesi mestari Olavi
lausumaan:

"Niin ihanaksi kuin ranskalaiset maataan kehuvatkin, ja

kieltämättähän se onkin ihana, niin en kuitenkaan vaihettaisi siihen
Suomeamme. Tämä on sittekin paras ja ihanin kolkka maailmassa."

"Kai sinä nyt jäätkin ainaiseksi tänne meidän luoksemme", virkkoi

siihen piispa, "sillä isänmaa kaipaa jo kovin sinun lahjojasi ja suurta
oppiasi."

"En ihan vielä, isäni," vastasi mestari Olavi, "sillä teologian

baccalario-tutkinto on vielä suorittamatta, jota paitsi minun syksyn
kuluessa on luennoitava Aristoteleen etiikasta. Mutta jo ensi vuoden
kuluessa palaan minä ainaiseksi synnyinmaan helmaan."

He kävelivät eteenpäin pitkin vallinharjaa, mestari Olavin ryhtyessä

kertomaan uutisia parasta aikaa koolla olevasta Baselin
kirkolliskokouksesta, jossa hän itsekin oli jonkun aikaa ollut
saapuvilla Parisin yliopiston edustajana.
Jooni toverineen loikoi huoletonna vallin kupeella, sillä äsken olivat
he päässeet vartiatoimesta vapaiksi.

"Huomasitteko, että mestari Olavi kutsui piispaa isäkseen?"

kuiskasi nuorempi.

"No entä sitte", vastasi Jooni, "mitä ihmettä siinä on, sillä onhan
hänen armonsa piispa meidän kaikkien isä."

"Niin, mutta…", yritti nuorempi, vaan vaikeni kesken lauseen,

tähystäen kävelevien jälkeen ja puhjeten sitten kokonaan toisesta
asiasta: "Arvaatteko, mitä minulla nyt tuli mieleen?"

"Ainakaan se ei mitään järjellä pilattua ole", arveli siihen Jooni.

"Ajattelin, että jos hänen armonsa piispa olisi meidän

kuninkaamme ja mestari Olavi hänen perintöprinssinsä, niin meidän
olisi hyvä olla."

"Onpas sillä tänään päähänpistoja", murahti Jooni ja päästi sen

päälle leveän naurun. "Ensin hän tahtoo panna paratiisin kokoon
joistakin sirpaleista ja sitten tehdä piispasta kuninkaan. Ja onkos
sinulla sitten näin ollen paha ollaksesi, sillä hänen armonsahan se
kuitenkin hallitsee meitä ja koko meidän maatamme ja mestari
Olavista tulee varmastikin hänen seuraajansa."

"Mutta katsokaapas, kuinka he näyttävät komeilta!" kehotti

nuorempi kokonaan omaan ajatusjuoksuunsa vaipuneena.

Jooni käänsi hitaasti katseensa vallinpäätä kohti, jossa isä ja poika

seisoivat rinnatusten, kuvastuen iltataivasta vasten kookkaina ja
muhkeina.
Nuijapäällikkö.

Vuoden 1596 viimeinen päivä alkoi hämärtyä illaksi. Taistelun

melske Viholan ja Tyrkkölän talojen pelloilla oli vaiennut ja Nokian
kosken kumea pauhina pääsi jälleen kuuluville.

Oli kireä pakkanen ja taivaalla syttyi tähti toisensa jälkeen.

Taistelu oli kestänyt koko lyhyen talvisen päivän. Marski oli

joukkoineen edellisenä iltana saapunut Pirkkalan kirkolle ja yön
levättyään hyökännyt heti aamulla kapean Pyhäjärven selän yli
Nokian puolelle, missä edellä mainittujen talojen tienoilla oli
nuijamiesten leiri. Koko päivän olivat marskin tuomat tykit
jyrähdelleet, huovien hevoset korskuen tallanneet lumisia peltoja,
nuijamiesten nuolet suhisseet ilmassa ja heidän raskaat,
rautapiikkiset nuijansa rämähdelleet ratsumiesten haarniskoita
vasten. Äsken oli marski vetäytynyt järven yli takaisin
majapaikkaansa ja taistelukenttä oli jäänyt nuijamiesten haltuun.
Mutta ratkaisevaa voittoa eivät he olleet saaneet ja taistelu oli
todennäköisesti uusiintuva huomenna.

Satojen kaatuneiden veri punasi vainioiden ja rantaniityn

lumivaippaa, mutta kylmän kangistamat ruumiit makasivat vielä sikin
sokin ympäri taistelukenttää. Niiden välissä loimusi kymmenittäin
nuotiotulia ja toisia tulia näkyi järven takaa, jossa marskin soturit
olivat leiriin käyneet. Niin seisoivat tässä vastakkain herravalta ja
talonpoikavalta, vaanien toisiaan tulisin silmin tähtikiiluisena uuden
vuoden yönä.

Eräältä nuijamiesten nuotiolta, johon eväskompeineen oli

sijottunut kymmenkunta Jalasjärven miestä, kuului laulunrenkutusta
ja äänekästä, rentoilevaa keskustelua. Miehet olivat taistelun
päätyttyä murtautuneet Nokian kartanon kellariin ja kulettaneet
sieltä oluttynnyrin nuotiolleen. Kun nuijajoukko tänne saapuessaan
ryösti kartanoa, oli Ilkka antanut miehistölle ainoastaan osan
oluttynnyreistä ja sulkenut loput kellariin, estääkseen siten liiallisen
juopottelun ja epäjärjestyksen. Mutta tämänpäiväisellä taistelulla
katsoivat Jalasjärven miehet ansainneensa tynnyrin olutta ja niin he,
taistelukuumeen vielä suonissa palaessa, olivat ilman päällikön lupaa
tunkeutuneet kellariin.

"Saapas tästä!" sanoi tynnyriä lähinnä istuva, ojentaen tuopin

seuraavalle. "Se ei olekaan mitään renkiolutta, vaan oikeata herrain
väkiolutta."

Kun toinen oli siemassut osansa tuopista ja lähettänyt sen

edelleen kiertämään, jatkoi ensimäinen:

"Mutta osuitkos sinä päivällä näkemään, kun minä tuolla pellolla

hyppäsin korkean kiven päälle ja huusin huoveille kukkokiekaa! ja
kun yksi ajaa karahutti kiven luo, niin minä linttasin nuijalla päähän,
niin että olkapäiden väliin ei jäänyt muuta kuin märkä pläsi."

"Märkä pläsikö?" kertasi toinen tahkealla humalaisen äänellä.

"Jopa laskit oikein emävaleen!"

"Väitätkö sinä minun valehtelevan, häh?" karjui ensimäinen, mutta

toinen nauroi kohti kurkkuaan ja vatkutti:

"Märkä pläsi! Voi sun seitsemän huovinsorkkaa, mikä mestarilyöjä

sinä olet! Lyödä miehen pää niin Iittiin, että kypäristäkään ei jää
jälelle muuta kuin märkää, ha, ha, haa!"
"Kyllä minä, kuule, opetan sinut konstailemaan kanssani!" tiuskasi
ensimäinen, kavahti ylös ja tarttui toveriaan rinnuksista.

"Mitä meteliä te täällä pidätte?" kuului samassa tiukka ja käskevä

ääni.

Miehet jättivät toisensa rauhaan ja kääntyivät puhujaan, joka juuri

oli astunut heidän nuotiotulensa piiriin. Se oli pitkä ja
jänteväliikkeinen mies, parraton, teräväilmeinen ja kalpeanko sekä
iältään noin neljänkymmenen korvilla. Päässään hänellä oli
karhunnahkalakki, jonka suppilomainen pohja oli ommeltu sinisestä
verasta. Hänen lyhyt turkkinsa oli keskeä vyötetty punaisella
villavyöllä ja jalassa hänellä oli pitkävartiset, punakirjaillut kallokkaat,
joilla hän liikkui lumessa niin pehmeästi, että miehet eivät olleet
kuulleet hänen askeleitaan.

"Ja mistä te olette tuon oluttynnyrin saaneet?" jatkoi tulija

kyselyään, äänessään vieläkin tiukempi sävy.

Kun kukaan miehistä ei kiirehtinyt vastaamaan, astui hän ihan

ensimäisen eteen ja tiuskasi:

"Häh, mistä tuo oluttynnyri on tänne tullut? Vai onko se taivaasta

tipahtanut?"

"Eihän se nyt ihan taivaastakaan ole tainnut siihen tipahtaa",

vastasi mies hitaasti ja kyräten.

"Nokian kellarista me sen noudimme", kuului nyt toisten joukosta

röyhkeä ääni.

"Ja kenen luvalla?" tivasi vieras ja hänen harmaat silmänsä

alkoivat kipinöidä.
"Ei me olla enää mitään sylivauvoja, että meidän olisi tarvis muilta
lupia kysyä silloin kun kurkkumme kaipaa kostuketta", vastasi sama
röyhkeä ääni.

Mitään puhumatta läheni vieras oluttynnyriä ja potkasi toisen

pohjan sisään, niin että kuohuva neste huljahti ulos ja muodosti
lumelle pian haihtuvan, vaahtoisen lätäkön.

"Mitä p——lettä sinä, Ilkka, luulet olevasi, kun sinä aina pyrit meitä
muita kuranssaamaan!" äsähti röyhkeä-ääninen mies ja käsi nyrkissä
astui puhutellun eteen. "Et sinä ole rahtuakaan parempi kuin me
muutkaan!"

Vieläkään mitään puhumatta tarttui Ilkka miestä rinnuksista ja

heitti hänet päistikkaa kinokseen. Hänen leukansa vapisi ja katsoen
uhkaavasti toisia lausui hän:

"En ole, enkä tahdokaan olla teitä toisia parempi. Mutta minä olen
teidän päällikkönne, te itse olette minut siksi valinneet ja luvanneet
minulle kuuliaisuutta niin kauan kuin tätä retkeä kestää. Sen tähden
teidän on toteltava minua. Minä lukitsin kellarin, koska meillä ei ollut
aikaa oluen ääressä reuhata. Vai luuletteko, että me olisimme tänä
päivänä kestäneet, jos marski kanuunoineen ja rautapukuisine
ratsureineen olisi kohdannut täällä juovuksissa räyhäävän joukon?"

Hän osotti toisella rannalla näkyviä tulia ja jatkoi:

"Tuossa aivan edessämme on vihollinen ja tämänpäiväinen leikki

on uudistuva huomenna, kenties vieläkin ankarampana. Karhu on
vain kömpinyt pesäänsä levähtämään. Sen tähden nyt on entistäkin
sopimattomampi aika remuamiseen. Tämä yö on käytettävä
lepäämiseen, sillä huomenna ratkaistaan, saako suomalainen
talonpoika pitää vanhan vapautensa, vai onko sen kannettava
marskin iestä."

Kukaan miehistä ei puhunut mitään. Kurituksen saanut kömpi ylös

kinoksesta ja asettui kyräten nuotion ääreen. Ilkka jatkoi matkaansa
ja poikkesi vielä parille nuotiolle sekä asetti rähinän muutamalla
kiivaalla sanalla. Sitten kiersi hän suksille nousten ympäri koko
niemen, tarkastaen olivatko vartijat valppaina asemillaan. Sen
tehtyään palasi hän omalle nuotiolleen saadakseen hiukan levähtää.

Edellisinä päivinä oli hän pitänyt kortteeria Nokian kartanossa.

Mutta tänään taistelun päätyttyä oli hän renkinsä käskenyt rakentaa
nuotion Pyhäjärven rannalle Viholan talojen alle sekä siirtää sinne
hevosensa ja rekensä. Siellä saattoi hän paremmin pitää silmällä
sekä omaa leiriään että vihollisia. Renki oli löytänyt nuotiolle hyvän
paikan muutamien yksinäisten kuusien suojasta, kappaleen matkaa
erillään muusta leiristä. Reen ja nuotion välissä oli valmiina
havuvuode, mutta itse renki oli nähtävästi pistäytynyt toisille tulille
pakinoimaan. Kuusten välissä syödä rouskuttivat molemmat hevoset.
Niistä oli toinen kookas ja kiiltävän musta ratsu, jonka hän päivällä
oli anastanut eräältä huovipäälliköltä.

Ilkka otti reestä karhuntaljan, levitti sen havujen päälle ja heittäysi

pitkäkseen nuotion lämpimään. Hän kävi mielessään läpi viime
päivien vaiheet ja tunsi itsensä tyytyväiseksi tähänastisiin tuloksiin.
Pari päivää aikaisemmin oli suoritettu ensimäinen taistelu. Laukon
herra ja Iivari Tavast olivat Tapaninpäivänä lähteneet parinsadan
huovin kanssa Hämeenlinnasta ja kehuneet sinne paenneille
herraskartanoiden naisille, että he muutamalla potkulla ajavat ne
riivatun nuijapäät takaisin Kyrönkankaan yli. Yhteentörmäys oli
tapahtunut tällä samalla niemellä ja lyhyt ottelu oli päättynyt niin,
että Laukon herra ja Tavast olivat huoveineen suin päin paenneet
Karkkuun. Ja tämänpäiväinen taistelu sitten? Nuijajoukko oli
horjumatta iskenyt vastaan ja pitänyt taistelutantereen hallussaan.

Ilkka tunsi suuren unelmansa toteutumistaan toteutuvan: nostaa

koko Suomen rahvas aseisiin, marssia Turkuun ja kukistaa Noki-
Klaun tyrannivalta. Vähitellen tämä mahtava suunnitelma oli hänessä
kasvanut ja kypsynyt. Sen voimalla oli hän, vuosi sitten marskin
kynsiin jouduttuaan, paennut Turun linnasta: kiivennyt takista
tekemäänsä köyttä myöten huimaavasta korkeudesta alas, pudonnut
köyden katketessa alas muurin juurelle ja loukannut itsensä, mutta
siitä huolimatta onnistunut monia seikkailuja kokien pääsemään
takaisin Pohjanmaalle. Sen jälkeen oli hän kohonnut ylimmäksi
kansan johtajaksi ja hänen neuvostaan ja toimellaan olivat nyt
pohjalaiset lähteneet liikkeelle kolmena joukkona, kukin tahollaan
nostaakseen aseisiin muun Suomen rahvasta.

Mutta saatuaan nämä lumivyöryt liikkeelle, oli hänen

mielikuvituksensa suunnitellut yhä rohkeampia. Kuka oli kohoava
marskin tilalle, sillä ilman hallitsijaahan maa ei voinut olla? Kuningas
oli kaukana Puolassa, eikä piitannut Suomesta mitään. Herttua?
Hänen nimensä varjolla ja kannatuksella tämä suuri yritys oli pantu
alkuun, mutta olihan hänkin vieras Suomen kansalle, vaikka kylläkin
lähempänä sitä kuin kuningas. Mutta olipa vielä eräs, jonka saattoi
panna marskin tilalle, jopa tehdä suomalaisten omaksi, erikoiseksi
kuninkaaksi. Hän oli kuullut huhuja, että Eerik-kuninkaan ja
Liuksialan rouvan poika, maanpakolainen prinssi Kustaa piileskeli
täällä Suomessa äitinsä lähettyvillä. Tähän olivat hänen
kuningasajatuksensa takertuneet Kyrönkankaan yli kuljettaessa,
eivätkä hellittäneet hänestä ennen kuin Liuksialassa, jossa Kaarina
kuningatar oli särkenyt tämän osan hänen unelmistaan. No,
tärkeintähän oli kuitenkin, että marskin sortovaltius tuli murretuksi,
ja sen toteutuminen näytti hänestä tällä hetkellä entistä
mahdollisemmalta.

Oli kuitenkin eräs seikka, joka häntä tuon tuostakin pyrki

arveluttamaan. Pystyikö hän hillitsemään niitä voimia, jotka hän oli
manannut esiin? Hän oli saanut jo kylliksi kokea, että tuota lukuisaa,
järjestykseen tottumatonta rahvaanjoukkoa oli tuiki työläs pitää
kurissa ja hillitä sen liiallista ryöstön ja hävityksen himoa. Hänen
tarkotuksensa ei suinkaan ollut, että kaikki herrat oli surmattava tai
karkotettava ja heidän kartanonsa hävitettävä, olipa hän päinvastoin
koettanut vetää heistä muutamia rahvaan puolelle, kuten Anolan
herraa Akseli Kurkea, vaikkakin tähän saakka onnistumatta. Mutta
tässä pyrkimyksessään sai hän lakkaamatta taistella omaa joukkoaan
vastaan ja töintuskin oli hän saanut Liuksialan sekä Tottien että
Hornien kartanot rauhotetuksi. Entistä enemmän kysyttäisiin häneltä
tarmoa sitten kun marskista oli voitto saatu ja rahvaan joukot yhtä
mittaa paisuen lähenisivät Turkua.

Retken alussa oli hän joskus ollut vallattoman remuinen ja juonut

muiden mukana itsensä täyteen humalaan, mutta huomatessaan
siitä olevan vahinkoa johtaja-arvolleen, oli hän lakannut siitä
kokonaan. Hän oli alkanut esiintyä yhä ankarampana sekä samalla
pitää omaa persoonaansa jossakin määrin eristettynä muusta
joukosta. Tosin hän oli huomannut katsottavan sitä pahalla silmällä,
mutta sittenkin piti hän sitä ajan oloon viisaimpana.

Leirinuotioilta kuului yhä melua ja laulun loilotusta. Ilkka rypisti

kulmiaan ja mietti, pitikö hänen uudelleen lähteä leirin läpi
kiertämään ja katsomaan, ettei siellä pidetty luvattomia juominkeja.
Mutta ennen kuin hän ehti nousta mukavalta paikaltaan, kuuli hän
askelten narinaa lumessa. Hän kohotti päätään ja huomasi nuotiota
lähestyvän vanhanpuoleisen, hintelän miehen, joka kantoi pientä
puunassakkaa kainalossaan ja joka kävellessään omituisesti hoippui.

"Aina vaan humalassa!" sanoi Ilkka toruvasti tulijalle, mutta hänen

äänessään ei kuitenkaan ollut äkäistä sävyä.

Ilkka ei tietänyt miehestä muuta kuin että hänen nimensä oli

Vilppu ja että hän oli kotoisin jostain Rautalammin puolelta. Hän oli
miltei yhtä menoa pienessä hutikassa, ja nassakassaan oli hänellä
aina paloviinaa. Kotipuolensa miesten kanssa tullen oli hän liittynyt
nuijajoukkoon ja hänen sallittiin olla mukana, koska hän omituisella
käytöksellään ja puheillaan huvitti muita. Useimmat pitivät häntä
hassuna, mutta Ilkka oli huomannut hänen käyttelevän viisaita
sananlaskujaan sangen sattuvasti sekä pystyvän lausumaan älykkäitä
neuvoja ja kohteli häntä sen vuoksi suopeasti.

"Elä sano aina, sillä takanani on paljon useampi selvä kuin

humalainen päivä", vastasi Vilppu, asettuen nuotion ääreen
istumaan.

"En tiedä, minkälaiset sinun taaksesi jättämät päivät ovat", jatkoi

Ilkka, "mutta tällä retkellä sinä tuskin lienet selvää päivää nähnyt."

"Saa köyhäkin joskus juhlia", vastasi Vilppu. "Tähän saakka minä

olen naukkaillut pelkästä juhlamielestä, mutta tästä eteenpäin minä
luultavasti tulen naukkailemaan siksi, ettei maailma näyttäisi niin
pimeältä kuin se itse asiassa on."

"Ja mikä sen tästä lähtien saisi niin pimeäksi? Päiväthän alkavat
pidetä ja me lähdemme tästä pian marssimaan Turkua kohti."
"Ellei meitä sitä ennen juoksujalassa lennätetä takaisin
Kyrönkankaan yli."

"Mistä sinä sellaista olet päähäsi saanut?" kysyi Ilkka vakavaksi

muuttuen. "Eikö tämänpäiväinen menestyksemme vakuuta sinulle
toista?"

"Minulla on omat merkkini, joista minä tulevaisia ennustelen",

vastasi
Vilppu. "Mutta mitäpäs niistä."

"Tokko sinä tämän päivän taistelusta tiedätkään mitään", sanoi

Ilkka, ja hänen äänensä muuttui jälleen suopean leikilliseksi. "Missä
lienetkin piileskellyt."

"Kyllä minä rehellisesti olin mukana. Aluksi kyllä pysyin

syrjästäkatsojana, mutta muistin sitten, että lisänähän on rikka
rokassa, ja tulin taistelutantereelle."

"Aseenasi tuo nassakka?"

"Niin", vastasi Vilppu viattomasti, "sillä muuta asetta minä en

kotoa lähtiessäni tullut mukaani ottaneeksi."

"Ja montako huovia sait kaadetuksi tuolla aimo aseellasi?"

"Totta puhuakseni minä en kaatanut yhtään, mutta sen sijaan

minä nostin aseellani pystyyn omia kaatuneitamme. Missä nimittäin
näin sellaisen maahan kolhitun, josta lääkitsemällä saattoi vielä
miehen tehdä, niin häneen vuodatin nassakastani elämännestettä ja
laitoin hänet uudestaan taisteluun."
"Aivan niin", hymähti Ilkka suopeasti, "sitenhän sinä olet saattanut
matkaan yhtä paljon hyvää kuin nekin, jotka kaatoivat vihollisia.
Sinun taistelutapasi on vain ollut laadultaan päinvastaista."

"Kuten minä koko mieskin", jatkoi Vilppu. "Mutta se on minussa

syntymävika."

Hetken nuotioon tuijotettuaan virkkoi Vilppu:

"Mutta asianihan minä olin kokonaan unhottaa. Minä tulin

nimittäin tänne laulaakseni sinulle uuden laulun, jonka juuri opin
tuolla jalasjärveläisten nuotiolla."

"Viis minä heidän renkutuksistaan", vastasi Ilkka. "Minua

nukuttaa."

"Kuulehan kuitenkin, ei se pitkä ole", pyyteli Vilppu ja alkoi

samassa venytellen laulaa:

"Ilkka ilkeä isäntä, pää kero, sininen lakki, ei konna tapella

tainnut eikä sammakko sotia, että joi joka talossa, joka
knaapin kartanossa."

Kulmat rypyssä nuotioon tuijottaen kysyi Ilkka:

"Keneltä sinä sanoit sen kuulleesi?"

"Jalasjärveläisten nuotiolla sitä juuri miehissä laulettiin."

"Se on jalasjärveläisten kosto siitä, että minä äsken keskeytin

heidän juominkinsa potkasemalla pohjan oluttynnyristä."

"Muutoin tämä on yksi niitä minun merkkejäni, joista minä tämän

sodan loppuvaiheita ennustelen", sanoi Vilppu hetken kuluttua.
"Hm, mitä tuollaiset renkutukset siihen voisivat vaikuttaa?"
hymähti
Ilkka.

"Kunpa eivät vaikuttaisikaan. Mutta nyt minä lähden jälleen

nuotioita kiertämään. Kuka ties saan vielä toisiakin lauluja oppia."

Vilppu nousi ja lähti leiriä kohti. Kun hän oli hieman etääntynyt,
havahtui Ilkka mietteistään ja huusi hänen jälkeensä:

"Kuule, jos huomaat tai kuulet mitään merkillisempää, niin tule

oitis minulle ilmottamaan. Jos minä nukun, niin herätä
kursailematta."

"Kyllä, kyllä, siis aivan kursailematta", niukasi Vilppu ja jatkoi

matkaansa.

Ilkka kohensi nuotiota, asettui jälleen pitkäkseen karhuntaljalle ja

ummisti silmänsä. Leirissäkin oli melu tällä välin vaimentunut, niin
että kosken pauhu kaikui entistä kumeampana. — — —

… Ilkka tunsi jaloillaan jotakin raskasta. Hän koetti kohottaa

päätään, nähdäkseen mitä se oli. Vihdoin pääsi hän toisen
kyynärpäänsä varaan ja huudahti hämmästyksestä, nähdessään että
hänen jaloillaan istui marski. Se tuijotti suoraan häneen, mustat
kulmansa rypyssä, kookas nenä punottaen ja harmaa parta
kuurassa, kuten päivällä taistelussa. Mutta hänen huudahtaessaan
alkoi se omituisesti hymyillä ja lausui:

"Enpä tainnut olla mieluisa vieras."

Kun Ilkka ei puhunut mitään, tuijotti yhä vain hämmästyneenä

marskiin, jatkoi tämä:
"Minä tulin vain kysymään, mitä varten sinä olet nämä
kansanjoukot tuonut minua vastaan?"

"Mitäkö varten? Se sinun pitäisi kyllä tietämän, kansansortaja!"

kiivastui nyt Ilkka ja teki rynnistyksen, saadakseen jalkansa vapaiksi.

Mutta marski istui leveänä ja liikkumatonna paikallaan sekä jatkoi

alakuloisen rauhallisesti:

"Ja kenen hyväksi sinä joukkoinesi taistelet? Eikö niin, että herttua
siitä suurimman hyödyn saa? Mutta kun minä olen poissa ja herttua
saa täällä ohjat käsiinsä, niin luuletko sinä hänen teitä
jäniksenkäpälällä sivelevän? Et luule, he. No onko sinusta sitten
hänen ikeensä mieluisampi kuin minun? Enkö minä kuitenkin ole
oman maan kasvatti, suora Suomen mies niinkuin tekin? Minä voin
puhua kanssanne suusta suuhun, mutta häntä puhutellaksesi pitää
sinulla olla tulkki. Vai onko teistä pohjalaisista vieras sorto parempi
kuin kotimainen? Ja sorranko minä teitä edes? No, jos sorrankin, niin
siihen minulla on pakko … on pakko pitää suurta sotajoukkoa
aseissa, ettei kuka hyvänsä vieras pääse maassamme valtikoimaan.
Olisitte vetäneet yhtä köyttä kanssani sen sijaan että kapinaan
nousitte, niin me olisimme ainaisiksi ajoiksi saaneet omain asiaimme
hoidon omiin käsiimme. Mutta nyt se yhden köyden veto ei enää käy
päinsä, sillä verta on vuotanut ja vuotaa vielä enemmän, kunnes te
olette hajotetut kuin akanat tuuleen."

Marski pyhkäsi molempia kämmeniään vastakkain, hymyili

pahaenteisesti ja näytti laajenemistaan laajenevan ja käyvän
painavammaksi. Ilkka teki epätoivoisen rynnistyksen, sai hänet
vieräytetyksi jaloiltaan ja — heräsi samassa.
Hän kavahti istualleen ja hieroi silmiään. Ollen vielä unennäkönsä
lumoissa ojensi hän nyrkkinsä toista rantaa kohti ja sanoi:

"Elä luulekaan, nokinenä, että sinä niin vain meidät tuuleen

hajotat!"

Samalla huomasi hän järven jäällä kaksi ratsastajaa, jotka etenivät

vihollisrantaa kohti. Hän hieroi uudelleen silmiään ja tähysti sitten
tarkkaan, tullakseen vakuutetuksi, etteivät äskeiset unikuvat hänen
silmissään kummitelleet. Selvään näki hän siellä kaksi ratsumiestä,
jotka hetken perästä hävisivät vastarannan luomaan pimentoon.

Omaa leiriään kohti kääntyessään näki hän Vilpun tulevan

uudestaan nuotiolleen. Tällä kertaa ei Vilppu hoipannut, vaan
harppasi eteenpäin puolijuoksua.

"Sillä on varmaankin jotain tärkeää ilmotettavana", ajatteli Ilkka.

"Ehkä juuri noista ratsastajista."

"Uhhuh! uhhuh!" puuskutti Vilppu nuotiolle päästyään, laski

nassakkansa maahan ja kumartui käsiään lämmittämään.

"Tiedätkö, ketä nuo kaksi ratsastajaa olivat, jotka juurikään täältä

käsin menivät järven yli vihollisten puolelle?" kysyi Ilkka.

"Ne olivat kauppiaita", vastasi Vilppu. "Heidän kaupoistaan tulinkin

juuri kertomaan sinulle."

"Mitä höpiset?" tiuskasi Ilkka äreästi.

"Puhdasta totta", vakuutti Vilppu mitä vilpittömättömimmällä

äänellä. "Ne olivat Laukon herra ja Melkersonni, jotka marski oli
lähettänyt tänne hieromaan kauppaa sinun nahastasi."
"Minun nahastani?" kertasi Ilkka hitaasti ja hänen kulmaansa väliin
ilmestyi syvä poimu. "Puhutko sinä totta, mies?"

"Totta, totta, kuka nyt tällaista leikkiä laskisi", vakuutti Vilppu. "He
olivat Tyrkkölässä ja siellä oli suuri osa meidän miehiämme. Marski
oli käskenyt ilmottaa, että jos he jättävät sinut hänen haltuunsa, niin
saavat he rauhassa palata kotiinsa sekä vielä päälliseksi vapauden
linnaleiristä."

"Kas mikä salakavala ehdotus!" puhkesi Ilkka sanomaan. "Etteivät

miehet napanneet niitä kataloita vangiksi."

"Vangiksiko?" ihmetteli Vilppu. "Mutta eihän silloin olisi kaupasta

tullut mitään."

"Kaupasta!" kertasi Ilkka kalveten. "Tietysti eivät miehemme

ruvenneet kuuntelemaankaan niin katalaa ehdotusta?"

"Kyllä he kuuntelivat loppuun asti ja loppujen lopuksi tehtiin

kaupat. Sinut luvattiin huomenaamuna jättää nuoriin sidottuna
marskille. Niin että sinun on, Ilkka, parasta nousta siekailematta
tuon anastamasi juoksijan selkään ja hävitä täältä mitä kiiruimmin.
He jäivät sinne vielä riitelemään ja valitsemaan miehiä, jotka tulevat
sinua vangitsemaan. Ainakin pari jalasjärveläistä oli jo valmiina
siihen toimeen."

Ennenkuin Vilppu oli ehtinyt lopettaa, töytäsi Ilkan renki paikalle ja

puuskutti:

"Isäntä, isäntä, lähtekää kiiruusti pakoon, teitä tullaan kohta

vangitsemaan!"

"Siinä sen nyt kuulet! Joudu siis!" sanoi Vilppu.

"Niitä kataloita!" äsähti Ilkka hammastensa välitse. "Kuka olis
tällaista uskonut!"

Hän seisoi hetken eteensä tuijottaen ja kädet sivuilla riippuen.

Mutta sitten leimahtivat hänen silmänsä ja vartalo jännittyi hänen
lausuessaan:

"Minä menen päätä suoraa Tyrkkölään ja nähdäänpä, eivätkö he

häpeä ja peruuta katalaa tuumaansa. Pahimmat pukarit, joilla tietysti
on entistä vihaa minua kohtaan, minä panetan kiinni."

Hän otti jo pari askelta mennäkseen, kun Vilppu ja renki tarttuivat

häntä kiinni kumpikin puoleltaan.

"Elkää herran nimessä menkö, isäntä!" pyysi renki hätääntyneenä.

"Ne alkavat olla jo juovuksissa, sillä lähtiessäni tuotiin sinne
kartanosta kokonainen kuorma oluttynnyreitä."

"Rohkaisevat itseään, kyetäkseen vangitsemaan oman

päällikkönsä", lisäsi Vilppu. "Jos sinä menet sinne, niin eivät ne enää
häpyä tunne, vaan panevat sinut heti nuoriin."

Rengin ilmotus pani Ilkan epäröimään. Hän oli toivonut

persoonallisella väliintulollaan voivansa tehdä tyhjäksi tuon ruman
puuhan, mutta mitä saattoi hän juopuneisiin vaikuttaa.

"Kaikkiko sitten raukesikin tähän?" sanoi hän masentuneena ja

seisoi allapäin molempain uskollistensa välissä. "Liian hyvin sinä,
Vilppu, ennustitkin tämän retken päätöksen. Mutta kuka olisi uskonut
kaiken näin kurjasti loppuvan!"

"Joutukaa, isäntä, joutukaa!" hoputti renki. "Minä satuloitsen

hevosen valmiiksi."
"Niinpä satuloitse sitten!" vastasi Ilkka lujalla äänellä ja hänen
silmänsä leimahtivat jälleen. "Jaakko Ilkan nahkaa he eivät myy!"
Hän otti reestä miekkansa ja kiinnitti sen kupeelleen. Satulaan
noustuaan kääntyi hän vielä kumpaankin mieheen ja sanoi:

"Aisottakaa toinen hevonen ja tulkaa perässäni, minkä pääsette.

Teille he toki eivät mitään tee, vaikka saavuttaisivatkin. Ja jos
miesten joukossa tuolla on uskollisia, niin kai he älyävät ajoissa
laittautua taipaleelle."

Hän nykäsi ohjaksista ja levännyt ratsu porhalsi täyteen juoksuun,

niin että lumi pöllysi. Siten ajoi hän poikki niemen kosken alle. Ennen
jäälle laskeutumistaan pysähytti hän ratsun ja kääntyi katsomaan
nuijamiesten leiriä kohti. Nuotiotulet pilkottivat punertavina huurun
keskeltä ja melkein kaikki äänet olivat siellä vaienneet aivankuin
jotakin hyvin tärkeää olisi ollut tekeillä.

Rajaton viha leimusi Ilkan silmistä, kun hän ojensi nyrkkinsä leiriä
kohti ja lausui hammastensa välitse:

"Sopikaa nyt välinne marskin kanssa, senkin katalat, miten parhain

taidatte! Minä palaan takaisin Kyrönkankaan taakse ja toivotan
teidän niskoillenne tuhatta painavamman ikeen kuin koskaan
marskin, että oppisitte miehen tavalla vapautenne puolesta
taistelemaan!"

Hän nykäsi jälleen ohjaksista ja ratsu porhalsi alas jäälle. Kavion

kapse eteni ja hetken kuluttua hävisi ratsastaja koskesta leviävän
huurun keskelle. Mutta pakkasyössä ärjyi Nokian koski kuin olisi se
kumealla äänellään julistanut petolliselle nuijamiesten armeijalle
veristä uudenvuoden päivää, häviötä ja perikatoa.
Poikki hakatut kädet.

Tuomas Heikinpojan pirtissä Juvan Salajärvellä oli perhe juuri

asettunut puhdetöihin lieden ympärille. Isännän äiti, vanha
upposokea muori, laski värttinän helmaansa ja heristi korviaan.

"Mistähän kuuluneekaan tuo jousenjänteiden helinä ja

rautapaitojen räminä?" virkkoi hän hetken kuunneltuaan.

"Mitähän se nyt taas on kuulevinaan?" hymähti joku joukosta.

"Ilman vain höpisee", lausui emäntä.

"Eipä tiedä, on se ennenkin kuullut semmoista, joka on pitänyt

paikkansa", sanoi isäntä vakavasti.

"Ja koko pohjoinen taivaanranta punottaa", jatkoi muori omissa

ajatuksissaan.

Kukaan ei puhunut mitään ja kaikkien mielialaan hiipi kaamea

tunne.

Juuri tällöin kuului reen ratinaa pihalta ja kohta sen jälkeen astui
pirttiin kolme miestä. Jokaisen valtasi epämieluisa tunne, sillä tulijat
kantoivat huovin pukua raskaine kannussaappaineen ja
nahkaköltereineen.

Tervehdyksen sijasta lausui yksi tulijoista röyhkeästi:

"Olutta pöytään vieraille!"

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com

Architecture Portfolio - Michelle Febriyana
No ratings yet
Architecture Portfolio - Michelle Febriyana
40 pages
RT 5100
No ratings yet
RT 5100
306 pages
Champions Science Junior College Andheri: STD. 12 Evs Projects and Journal Work / Assignment Topic List
No ratings yet
Champions Science Junior College Andheri: STD. 12 Evs Projects and Journal Work / Assignment Topic List
12 pages
剑桥雅思阅读同义替换词表（7 9）
No ratings yet
剑桥雅思阅读同义替换词表（7 9）
22 pages
HW Solutions 2023 Lecture 1
No ratings yet
HW Solutions 2023 Lecture 1
5 pages
Shahajahan MBA Project 2021
No ratings yet
Shahajahan MBA Project 2021
58 pages
NdLinear Is All You Need For Representation Learning
No ratings yet
NdLinear Is All You Need For Representation Learning
42 pages
Implementation of The Updated Annex 1 For The Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products
No ratings yet
Implementation of The Updated Annex 1 For The Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products
38 pages
Open Channels: (Open Channel Flow and Hydraulic Machinery) Unit - I
No ratings yet
Open Channels: (Open Channel Flow and Hydraulic Machinery) Unit - I
66 pages
Sph3u Chapter 01 Motion in A Straight Line
No ratings yet
Sph3u Chapter 01 Motion in A Straight Line
22 pages
Institute of Management Studies: Topic:-MS Excel Charts
No ratings yet
Institute of Management Studies: Topic:-MS Excel Charts
39 pages
Materi 4
No ratings yet
Materi 4
18 pages
Chairin Ghillanda.4202421018.mr General Chemistry
No ratings yet
Chairin Ghillanda.4202421018.mr General Chemistry
11 pages
The Challengs Form Carbonate Petrophysics in Petroleum...
No ratings yet
The Challengs Form Carbonate Petrophysics in Petroleum...
14 pages
Lesson Plan
No ratings yet
Lesson Plan
5 pages
9TH - Icse - Physics - Preboard Worksheet
No ratings yet
9TH - Icse - Physics - Preboard Worksheet
5 pages
A Comparative Study of Ego Strength and Anxiety Between Government and Private School Students of Ranchi Town
No ratings yet
A Comparative Study of Ego Strength and Anxiety Between Government and Private School Students of Ranchi Town
5 pages
03-04 Rotating Frames of Reference
No ratings yet
03-04 Rotating Frames of Reference
6 pages
Hand Out Bahasa Inggris Kelas Xi: Kompetensi Dasar
No ratings yet
Hand Out Bahasa Inggris Kelas Xi: Kompetensi Dasar
11 pages
Hilbert Space For Random Processes
No ratings yet
Hilbert Space For Random Processes
11 pages
Introduction To The Philosophy of The Human Person 6 Intersubjectivity. Bernie Caron 12 HUMSS D
No ratings yet
Introduction To The Philosophy of The Human Person 6 Intersubjectivity. Bernie Caron 12 HUMSS D
7 pages
EXTRA - Memorization Learning
No ratings yet
EXTRA - Memorization Learning
2 pages
202550876663IF Chibuzor
No ratings yet
202550876663IF Chibuzor
1 page
Halo Tactics Reference Card PDF
No ratings yet
Halo Tactics Reference Card PDF
2 pages
20EMBTT233
No ratings yet
20EMBTT233
1 page
Oral Communication Quarter 2 Week 1: Capsulized Self-Learning Empowerment Toolkit
No ratings yet
Oral Communication Quarter 2 Week 1: Capsulized Self-Learning Empowerment Toolkit
5 pages
TL6 - Adsorber
No ratings yet
TL6 - Adsorber
2 pages
OMAR CV New
No ratings yet
OMAR CV New
1 page
DuPont Tynex 612
100% (1)
DuPont Tynex 612
4 pages
GRP 6 - Project Proposal
No ratings yet
GRP 6 - Project Proposal
4 pages
The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
From Everand
The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
George Packer
4/5 (45)
Principles: Life and Work
From Everand
Principles: Life and Work
Ray Dalio
4/5 (643)
The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
From Everand
The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
Thomas L. Friedman
3.5/5 (2289)
The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
From Everand
The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
Siddhartha Mukherjee
4.5/5 (298)
The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)
From Everand
The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)
Sarah M. Broom
4/5 (100)
Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore
From Everand
Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore
Jay Sekulow
3.5/5 (144)
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
From Everand
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
Doris Kearns Goodwin
4.5/5 (244)
John Adams
From Everand
John Adams
David McCullough
4.5/5 (2546)
Fear: Trump in the White House
From Everand
Fear: Trump in the White House
Bob Woodward
3.5/5 (836)
The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are
From Everand
The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are
Brené Brown
4/5 (1175)
A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story
From Everand
A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story
Dave Eggers
3.5/5 (233)
Manhattan Beach: A Novel
From Everand
Manhattan Beach: A Novel
Jennifer Egan
3.5/5 (919)
Her Body and Other Parties: Stories
From Everand
Her Body and Other Parties: Stories
Carmen Maria Machado
4/5 (903)
Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike
From Everand
Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike
Phil Knight
4.5/5 (629)
Steve Jobs
From Everand
Steve Jobs
Walter Isaacson
4.5/5 (1139)
Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel
From Everand
Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel
Jesmyn Ward
4/5 (1267)
The Glass Castle: A Memoir
From Everand
The Glass Castle: A Memoir
Jeannette Walls
4.5/5 (1856)
The Outsider: A Novel
From Everand
The Outsider: A Novel
Stephen King
4/5 (2885)
The Light Between Oceans: A Novel
From Everand
The Light Between Oceans: A Novel
M.L. Stedman
4.5/5 (815)
Angela's Ashes: A Memoir
From Everand
Angela's Ashes: A Memoir
Frank McCourt
4.5/5 (943)
Little Women
From Everand
Little Women
Louisa May Alcott
4.5/5 (2369)
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
From Everand
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Stephen Chbosky
4.5/5 (4103)

What Makes Schools Successful Resources Policies and Practices Oecd Instant Download

Uploaded by

What Makes Schools Successful Resources Policies and Practices Oecd Instant Download

Uploaded by

What Makes Schools Successful Resources Policies

And Practices Oecd download

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Pisa 2009 Results Vol 4 What Makes A School Successful Resources

Good Health At Low Cost 25 Years On What Makes A Successful Health

School For Dukes What A Difference A Duke Makes 2018 Bell

Doing What Matters How To Get Results That Make A Differencethe

Pr ogr am m e f or Int er nat ional St udent A s s es s m ent

Resources, Policies and Practices

Please cite this publication as:

ISBN 978-92-64-20114-9 (print)

Revised version, February 2014

CHAPTER 4 School Governance, Assessments and Accountability �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127

CHAPTER 5 How the Quality of the Learning Environment is Shaped������������������������������������������������������������������� 165

CHAPTER 6 Policy Implications of School Management and Practices�������������������������������������������������������������� 189

ANNEX C THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PISA – A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT���������������������������� 537

Table A2.1 PISA target populations and samples................................................................................................................................................................. 211

Table IV.2.1 Primary school starting age................................................................................................................................................................................... 276

Table IV.3.1 Cumulative expenditure by educational institutions..................................................................................................................................... 313

Table IV.3.6 Composition and qualifications of teaching staff.......................................................................................................................................... 320

Table IV.4.16 Correlation between indices of school management................................................................................................................................... 403

Table IV.4.17 Parental involvement ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 404

Table IV.4.18 Parents’ expectations of high academic performance.................................................................................................................................. 405

Table IV.4.21 National assessments at the upper secondary level...................................................................................................................................... 412

Table IV.4.23 National examinations at the upper secondary level................................................................................................................................... 415

Table IV.4.30 Assessment practices ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 425

Table IV.4.32 Quality assurance and school improvement ................................................................................................................................................. 428

Table IV.4.34 Monitoring mathematics teachers’ practice ................................................................................................................................................... 430

Table IV.4.35 Consequences of teacher appraisals ................................................................................................................................................................ 431

Table IV.5.1 Arriving late for school........................................................................................................................................................................................... 437

Table IV.5.3 Skipping a day of school or some classes........................................................................................................................................................ 439

Table IV.5.5 Index of teacher-student relations and mathematics performance.......................................................................................................... 441

Table IV.5.6 Index of disciplinary climate and mathematics performance.................................................................................................................... 443

Table IV.5.9 Principals’ views on student truancy................................................................................................................................................................. 449

Table IV.5.10 Index of teacher morale and mathematics performance............................................................................................................................. 450

Table B2.IV.1 Grade repetition, by region................................................................................................................................................................................... 477

This book has...

Four symbols are used to denote missing data:

Two notes were added to the statistical data related to Cyprus:

Calculating international averages

Reporting student data

Reporting school data

Focusing on statistically significant differences

Abbreviations used in this report

A test the whole world can take

Africa: Mauritius and Tunisia.

Map of PISA countries and economies

PISA’s unique features include its:

Key features of PISA 2012

Who are the PISA students?

What kinds of results does the test provide?

Where can you find the results?

The other five volumes cover the following issues:

How Resources, Policies

What the data tell us

Performance differences among school systems, schools and students

Between systems Between schools Between students

All participating countries

54% 36% 46%

Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database.

Measuring the success of school systems

Spain Latvia Norway

Before accounting for per capita GDP

2 Across OECD countries

Korea Mexico Italy

2 Across all participating countries and economies

Score-point difference between “always considered” and “sometimes/never considered”

-50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125

Trends in the relationship between mathematics performance and stratification

United States -17

Box IV.1.3. Trends in the relationship between resources, policies and practices

How learning outcomes are related to systems’ resource allocation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Countries/economies with per capita GDP less than USD 20 000

Argentina Tunisia Jordan

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

CHAPTER 4 School Governance, Assessments and Accountability �� 127

CHAPTER 5 How the Quality of the Learning Environment is Shaped�� 165

CHAPTER 6 Policy Implications of School Management and Practices�� 189

ANNEX C THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PISA – A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT�� 537