low-performing students- why they fall behind and how to help them succeed

LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTSWHY THEY FALL BEHIND AND

HOW TO HELP THEM SUCCEED

Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills

OECD

February 2016

“LOW-PERFORMING” STUDENTS:

WHAT DO WE MEAN?

• In PISA, Level 2 is considered the baseline level of proficiency in mathematics, reading and/or science.

• In PISA, “low performers” are students who perform below the baseline Level 2 in mathematics, reading and/or science (i.e. they score at Level 1 or below).

• Low performers can answer questions that provide clear directions and single information sources and connections. However, they typically cannot make more complex uses of information and reasoning.

Low performers: Definitions in PISA

Students demonstrate elementary skills to read and understand simple text and master basic mathematical and scientific concepts

and procedures

Regular but moderate physical exercise is good for our health

What happens when muscles are exercised? Circle “Yes” or “No” for each statement.

Does this happen when muscles are exercised? Yes or No?

Muscles get an increased flow of blood. Yes / No

Fats are formed in the muscles. Yes / No

Answering this question correctly corresponds to a difficulty of 386 score points on the PISA science scale. Across countries, 82% of students answered correctly. This question assesses students’ competency of explaining phenomena scientifically.

% students by country who answered correctly

Finland 93Hungary 91Russian Federation 90Slovenia 89Latvia 88Czech Republic 88Iceland 88Greece 87Portugal 87Croatia 86Spain 86Italy 85Liechtenstein 85Hong Kong- China 85Australia 85Canada 84Denmark 84Serbia 84New Zealand 84Belgium 84Poland 84Netherlands 84Tunisia 83Slovak Republic 83United Kingdom 83OECD average 82Sweden 82Switzerland 82Chile 82Turkey 82Thailand 81Macao-China 81Bulgaria 81Jordan 80Israel 80Japan 80Luxembourg 79Austria 79France 79Mexico 78Germany 77Estonia 77Chinese Taipei 77Norway 76United States 76Romania 76Montenegro 76Ireland 76Argentina 75Lithuania 73Azerbaijan 72Brazil 71Korea 68Colombia 63Kyrgyzstan 57Indonesia 54Qatar 53

Mei-Ling from Singapore was preparing to go to South Africa for 3 months as an exchange student. She needed to change some Singapore dollars (SGD) into South African rand (ZAR).

Question: Mei-Ling found out that the exchange rate between Singapore dollars and South African rand was:

1 SGD = 4.2 ZAR

Mei-Ling changed 3000 Singapore dollars into South African rand at this exchange rate. How much money in South African rand did Mei-Ling get?

Answer: ________________________

% students by country who answered correctly

Liechtenstein 95Macao- China 93Finland 90France 89Hong Kong-China 89Sweden 89Austria 87Switzerland 87Belgium 87Czech Republic 87Canada 86Slovak Republic 86Iceland 86Denmark 85Russian Federation 85Luxembourg 85Netherlands 85Hungary 84Ireland 83Germany 83Australia 81Korea 81Latvia 80New Zealand 80OECD average 80Japan 79Spain 79Serbia 79Norway 77Poland 77Portugal 74United Kingdom 74Greece 73Italy 71Uruguay 71Mexico 60Thailand 60Turkey 60Indonesia 59Tunisia 55United States 54Brazil 37

12600 zAR

Answering this question correctly corresponds to a difficulty of 406 score points on the PISA mathematics scale. Across countries, 80% of students answered correctly. To answer the question correctly students have to draw on skills from the reproduction competency cluster.

LOW PERFORMANCE AT AGE 15

WHY IT MATTERS

• Risk of dropping out of school: lower educational attainment

• Low-skills tend to be persistent over time, from age 15 into early adulthood

• Limited access to better-paying and more-rewarding- jobs

• Poorer health and less social political participation

Consequences for low performers

Consequences for education systems

Source: Figure 1.10.

350 400 450 500 550 600 6500

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

60.7

66.5

19.718.7

19.0

67.1

43.8

13.8

51.5

12.8

73.8

59.9

29.9

21.0

16.8

10.5

12.3

22.4 17.7

35.7

8.5

28.1

21.5

75.7

16.9

33.5

24.7

11.1

68.6

45.2

9.1

19.914.1

26.0

24.3

10.8

51.8

54.756.7

14.8

22.622.3

74.6

14.4

24.9

69.6

40.8

24.0

38.9

3.88.3

27.5

20.1

23.6

27.1

12.4

49.7

67.8

42.0

46.3

21.8

25.9

55.8

14.3

23.0

R² = 0.96728357922774

13

2

45

678

9101112 13

1415

16 17

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.

Reducing low performance is an effective way to improve

overall performance

At high levels of performance,

reducing % of low performers further is

challenging

Mor

e lo

w p

erfo

rmer

s

%

Higher mean score

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter

The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS):

Low performance compromises equality in educational opportunity

Source: Figure 2.2.

Perc

enta

ge o

f low

pe

rfor

mer

s

Low performers come more frequently from socio-economically

disadvantaged families

The economic value of eliminating low performance

Baseline skills Full enrolment without increase in

quality

Baseline skills and full enrolment

0%100%200%300%400%500%600%700%800%900%

1000%1100%1200%1300%1400%

Lower middle income countriesUpper middle income countriesHigh income non-OECD

Value of improvement in terms of current GDP over working life of today’s 15-year-olds

The increase in GDP among high income countries would still

exceed total current spending on schooling

LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTS:

HOW MANY ARE THERE?

All countries participating in PISA have a sizable share of low performers

Percentage of low performers (Level 1 or below) in Mathematics

Source: Figure 1.5.

Indon

esia

Qatar

Tunisi

a

Costa

Rica

Mexico

Thaila

nd

Bulgar

ia

Serbia

Croati

a

Sweden

Portug

al

Russia

n Fed

erati

on

New Zea

land

United

King

dom

Sloven

ia

Belgium

Irelan

d

Poland

Canad

a

Finlan

d

Estonia

Singap

ore

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Below level 1 Level 1%

50% or more:16 countries

10% or less:

4 countries /

economies

What this means in absolute terms, across all countries and economies

Overlap of low performers in mathematics, reading and science

Reading and mathematics1 035 845

Mathematics and

science1 782 032 Reading and

science353 331

Reading, mathematics and science

6 463 602

Mathematics

only

2 127 165

Science only

483 912

Reading only

659 939

Source: Figure 1.1.

Low performers in at least one

subject:12 905 826

Mexico

Tunisi

a

Poland

Russia

n Fed

erati

on

Thaila

ndLatv

ia

Indon

esia

Switzer

land

Macao

-Chin

a

Austri

a

United

States

OECD aver

age 2

003

Norway

Belgium

Canad

a

Czech

Rep

ublic

Austra

lia

Franc

e

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Urugu

ay0

10

2030

40

5060

70

8090

Percentage of students below Level 2 in 2012Percentage of students below Level 2 in 2003

%

Uneven progress in reducing low performance in mathematics


Low PerformanceStudents

Socio-economic statusDemographic background

Progress through educationAttitudes and behaviours

SchoolsSchool composition

Learning environmentResources and administration

SystemsAllocation of resourcesStratification policies

Governance

What are the main risk factors of low performance at age 15?

STUDENTS’ BACKGROUND

AND

LOW PERFORMANCE

1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

13.0

15.0

17.0

19.0

After accounting for other student characteristicsBefore accounting for other student characteristicsOdds

ratio

Socio-economic status

Source: Figure 2.3.

Mor

e lik

ely

to b

e lo

w

perf

orm

er More likely to be low performer:socio-economically disadvantaged studentsOdds ratios higher than 1.0 mean that disadvantaged

students are more likely to be low performers than

advantaged students

Gender (OECD average)

Source: Figure 2.4.

Mathematics Reading Science Low-performers in all subjects

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Boys GirlsPe

rcen

tage

of l

ow p

erfo

rmer

s

Boys are more often low performers in reading and scienceGirls are more often low performers in mathematics

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

After accounting for other student characteristicsBefore accounting for other student characteristics

Odds ratio

Immigrant background

Source: Figure 2.7.

More likely to be low performer:students with an immigrant background

STUDENTS’ PROGRESS THROUGH EDUCATION

AND

LOW PERFORMANCE

Estonia

Canad

a

Irelan

d

Nether

lands

Chines

e Taip

ei

Russia

n Fed

erati

on

Lithu

ania

Icelan

d

Austra

lia

New Zea

land

United

King

dom

Serbia Ita

ly

Kazak

hstan

Malays

ia

United

Arab E

mirates

Monten

egro

Thail

and

Chile

Jorda

n

Colombia Pe

ru0

102030405060708090

100

No pre-primary educationA year or less of pre-primary educationMore than a year of pre-primary education%

Pre-primary education


More low performers among students with no pre-primary education

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Have not repeated a grade Have repeated a grade%

Grade repetition


More low performers among students who had repeated a grade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Enrolled in a general programme Enrolled in a vocational programme%

Program orientation


More low performers among students enrolled in vocational programmes

The risk of low performance is cumulative and multidimensional


Demographic background

Progress through education

Disad-vantaged

SES

Girl Immi-grant back-

ground

Different language

Lives in a rural area

Single-parent

A year or

less of pre-

primary

Has no pre-

primary

Re-peated a grade

Voca-tional track

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Socio-economically advantaged studentSocio-economically disadvantaged student

Probability of low performance (%)

Cumulative probability of becoming a low performer

Socio-economic

status

STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

AND

LOW PERFORMANCE

More hours spent doing homework is associated with a lower risk of low performance, at least up to a point

Source: Figure 3.4.

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

After accounting for students' characteristicsBefore accounting for students' characteristics

Odds ratio :

hours of homework

versus no

homework

Students who spend 6 hours on homework per week are 70% less likely to be low performers than students who do no

homeworkLess

like

ly t

o be

low

per

form

ers

Participation in mathematics-related activities and low performance

Source: Figure 3.5.

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Difference between low and moderate performersDifference between low and strong/top performersPercentage-

point difference

When activities require higher-order skills, top performers participate more

When activities are social and recreational, low performers

participate more

Low performers in mathematics perceive their effort to be unproductive

Source: Figure 3.6.

I work hard on my mathematics

homework

I finish homework in time for mathematics

class

I study hard for mathematics quizzes

I am prepared for mathematics exams

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Difference between low and moderate performersDifference between low performers and strong/top performers

Percentage-point difference

Low performers need support when preparing for exams and doing

homeworkWhen questions relate to the outcomes of these

efforts:differences are large

When questions relate to invested effort: differences are small

What matters for students’ attitudes towards school and learning is their performance, not their socio-economic status


-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Attendance at school Sense of belonging at schoolPerseverance Mathematics self-efficacy

Mean index

ESCS refers to the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status

Low performers' attitudes towards school and learning, by school subject


Not a low performer Low performer in one subject

Low performer in two

subjects

Low performerin reading,

mathematics and science

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Attendance at school Sense of belonging at schoolMean index

Early detection

Disengaged students

SCHOOLS

AND

LOW PERFORMANCE

Viet N

am

Turke

y

Thaila

nd

Colombia

Tunisi

a

Urugu

ayChil

e

Shang

hai-C

hina

Hunga

ry

Portug

al

Bulgar

ia

Slovak

Rep

ublic

SerbiaLatv

ia

Czech

Rep

ublicJap

an

Austri

a

Greec

e

Monten

egro

Poland

Sloven

ia

OECD aver

age

Russia

n Fed

erati

on

New Zea

landIsr

ael

Nether

lands

Switzer

land

United

King

dom

United

Ara

b Emira

tes

Sweden

Canad

a

Norway

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

Below Level 1 Level 1Moderate performers (Level 2 or 3) Strong performers (Level 4)Top performers (Level 5 or 6)

Mean index

Socio-economic profile of schools

Source: Figure 4.4.

Low performers tend to have school peers of lower socio-economic status

Socio-economic inclusion in schools

Source: Figure 5.1a.

40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

United States

R² = 0.27224937063839

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

1 23 45

67

8

9

Fewer low performers in countries with more social inclusion in schools

Mor

e lo

w p

erfo

rmer

s

More socio-economic inclusion in schools

%

%

Macao

-Chin

a

Roman

ia

Austri

a

Slove

nia

Denmar

k

Serb

ia

Hong K

ong-C

hina

Russia

n Fed

erati

on

Jorda

nSp

ain

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Estonia

Austra

lia

Portu

gal

United

King

dom

Greec

e

Turk

ey

United

Ara

b Emira

tes

Singa

pore

Chile

Indon

esia

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

After accounting for socio-economic status of students and schoolsBefore accounting for socio-economic status of students and schoolsOdds ratio

Teachers’ expectations

Source: Figure 4.5.

More likely to be low performers: students in schools where teachers have low expectations

Austri

a

Luxem

bour

g

Monten

egro

Serb

ia

Portu

gal

Bulgar

ia

Urugu

ayIsr

ael

Chile

Polan

d

Thail

and

Lithu

ania

Spain

Turk

ey

Swed

en

New Zea

land

Kazak

hstan

Chines

e Taip

ei

Jorda

n

United

King

dom

Viet N

amKor

ea0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6


Teachers’ support

Source: Figure 4.7.

More likely to be low performers: students in schools where there is less teacher support

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0


Teachers’ morale

Source: Figure 4.8.

More likely to be low performers: students in schools where teachers’ morale is lower

Sloven

ia

Croati

aJap

an

Finlan

d

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Icelan

d

Norway

Austra

lia

United

States

German

y

Urugu

ay

Malays

iaLa

tvia

Russia

n Fed

erati

on

Austri

a

Czech

Rep

ublic

Denmar

k

Nether

lands

Singa

pore

Bulgar

ia

Jorda

n

United

King

dom

Fran

ce

Thaila

nd Italy

Switz

erlan

d

Macao

-Chin

aQata

r

Estonia

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


Teachers’ absenteeism

Source: Figure 4.9.

More likely to be low performers: students in schools with more teachers’ absenteeism

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0


Parental pressure for high achievement and low performance

Source: OECD, Figure 4.12.

More likely to be low performers: students in schools where there is less parental pressure

School resources: infrastructure, teachers, materials, class size

Source: Figure 5.2.

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

R² = 0.0417888129674445R² = 0.0561260362232043

R² = 0.430198406778256R² = 0.244989154778118

Mean of each index

Perc

enta

ge o

f low

per

form

ers

in m

athe

mati

cs

Quality of physical infrastructure

Teacher shortage

Class size

Quality of schools' educational resources

System-level correlation (all countries/economies in PISA 2012)

School resources by country’s resources level

Source: Figure 5.3.

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

R² = 0.418171831164844

R² = 0.000895617937117232

R² = 0.346785311760818R² = 0

Mean of each index

Perc

enta

ge o

f low

per

form

ers

in m

athe

mati

cs

OEC

D av

erag

eQuality of physical infrastructure (below OECD average)

Quality of schools' educational resources

(below OECD average)

Quality of schools' educational resources (above OECD average)

Quality of physical infrastructure

(above OECD average)


Equity in resources across schools

Source: Figure 5.5.

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

R² = 0.12732372144503

R² = 0.00652570200338576

R² = 0.359387819993253

R² = 0.105722350320994

Equity in resource allocation

Perc

enta

ge o

f lo

w /

top

per

form

ers

in m

athe

mati

cs

Equity in resource allocation and low performers, after accounting for the quality of schools' educational resources

Equity in resource allocation and low performers


and top performers,

after accounting for the

quality of schools' educational

resources


and top performers


School system structure (1)


-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

R² = 0.0660189055701901

R² = 0.000178608142048176

R² = 0.167310209016509

Mean of each index

Perc

enta

ge o

f low

per

form

ers

in m

athe

mati

cs

Vertical stratification

Ability grouping within schools

Between-school horizontal stratification

System-level correlation (all countries/economies with data in PISA 2012)

A POLICY FRAMEWORK

FOR TACKLING STUDENT

LOW PERFORMANCE

StudentsSocio-economic status

Socio-economic disadvantageDemographic backgroundGirls (math), Boys (reading and science)Immigrant, language minority,

rural areasSingle parent family

Progress through educationLack of pre-primary

Grade repetitionVocational programme

Attitudes and behavioursMissing classes

Low perseverance

Summary: Risk Factors of Low Performance

SchoolsSchool compositionConcentration of disadvantaged

studentsLearning environment

Low expectations for studentsUnsupportive teachers,

low teacher moraleMore ability groupingLack of after-school

opportunitiesUninvolved parents and

communitiesResources and administration

Lack of qualified teachersLack of quality educational

resources

Summary: Risk Factors of Low Performance

Thanks!

www.oecd.org/pisa

[email protected]@oecd.org

[email protected]

For more information:

mailto:[email protected]