Group Report PISA-based Test for European Schools 2022 PDF

How The European Schools Compare Internationally PISA for Schools 2022  PISA for Schools How The European Schools Compare Internationally 2022 This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The o...

How The European Schools Compare Internationally PISA for Schools 2022  PISA for Schools How The European Schools Compare Internationally 2022 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 OECD member countries. This document, as well as any data and 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. 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. 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. Icons made by Good Ware from www.flaticon.com © OECD 2022 The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at www.oecd.org/termsandconditions  Foreword Teachers and educational leaders need meaningful and reliable information to assess how well their students are prepared for life and work. Many administrators evaluate student learning based upon local or countrywide expectations. In a global economy, however, the benchmark for educational success is no longer national standards alone, but those set by the world’s best performing schools and education systems. Over the past 20 years, the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has evaluated the quality, equity and efficiency of school systems in over 80 countries and economies that, together, comprise nine- tenths of the world economy. Through PISA, schools and countries can learn from each other. Those education systems that have been able to secure strong and equitable learning outcomes and mobilise rapid improvements show others what is possible. Similar to the international PISA assessment, the PISA-based Test for Schools measures 15-year-old students’ knowledge and competencies in reading, mathematics and science. It also assesses their attitudes towards learning and school and the learning environments of the schools themselves. Importantly, these assessments measure not just whether students can reproduce what they have learned, but how well students can extrapolate from what they know and apply their knowledge creatively in novel contexts. The PISAbased Test for Schools is a unique tool designed for individual schools to compare their students’ learning outcomes and benchmark them globally in innovative ways. This report provides results from the PISA-based Test for Schools for the European Schools. But data is only the first step to deeper understanding and is only useful if it paves the way to action. You also have the opportunity to exchange with and learn from the strategies, policies and practices of other participating schools around the world who share your commitment to peer-learning, critical reflection and school improvement. The OECD stands ready to support all those involved in delivering “better policies for better schools and better lives.” Andreas Schleicher Director, Directorate for Education and Skills Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General OECD © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 3  Acknowledgments This report for the European Schools is based primarily on data and project co-ordination provided by Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools. As an accredited service provider for the PISA-based Test for Schools in the European Schools’ System, the Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools conducted test administration, coding, data management and provided the analytical outputs that comprise the school reports in close cooperation with the designated staff members of the schools. This digital assessment is provided by Janison Solutions Pty Ltd, which serves as the International Platform Provider for the PISA-based Test for Schools, in partnership with the OECD. Strategic guidance and oversight of the PISA for Schools project is provided by Andreas Schleicher and Yuri Belfali with Joanne Caddy. This report was prepared by Tanja Bastianic, François Keslair, Tomoya Okubo, Chi Sum Tse, and Nathanael Reinertsen, while Jenny Baracaldo provided administrative support. 4 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Table of contents 1. Executive Summary 7 2. What the European Schools can learn from the PISA-based Test for Schools 9 2.1 Your sample and your participation 11 2.2 Understanding the European Schools’ results 13 3. Cognitive skills: What students in the European Schools know and can do 15 3.1 Analysing student performance in the European Schools 15 3.2 Student performance in reading 19 3.3 Student performance in mathematics 22 3.4 Student performance in science 26 3.5 Performance in reading, mathematics and science by school 30 3.6 European Schools’ results across PISA proficiency levels 32 3.7 Exploring the performance of girls and boys 35 3.8 Measuring the performance gap between the highest- and lowest-performing students 38 3.9 Exploring the effect of socio-economic status on student performance in the European 42 Schools 3.10 The European Schools’ performance in the socio-economic context of the European Union 46 4. Student voice: Exploring student engagement and how students feel at school 51 4.1 Motivation for learning science 54 4.2 Student beliefs in their own self-efficacy in science 55 4.3 Motivation for learning mathematics 58 4.4 Student beliefs in their own self-efficacy in mathematics 60 4.5 Students’ career expectations 62 4.6 Student perceptions of teaching practices 69 4.7 Classroom disciplinary climate 73 4.8 Student experience of bullying 77 © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 5  5. Insights on the learning and assessment in a second languages 81 5.1 Comparing proficiency distributions of L1 and L2 student populations 82 5.2 Comparing percentile scores of L1 and L2 student populations 87 5.3 Comparing L1 and L2 students for each test language 91 5.4 Comparing L2 students with and without a language section 92 A. Annex 1 95 Annex 2 100 6 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  1. Executive Summary 1. © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 7 1. I 8 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  2. 2. WHAT THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS CAN LEARN FROM THE PISA-BASED TEST FOR SCHOOLS While PISA is intended to deliver national results, the PISA-based Test for Schools (PBTS) is designed to deliver school-level results for school improvement and benchmarking purposes. By administering the PISA-based Test for Schools in the Because both PISA and PBTS are based on the same European Schools, you have access to internationally framework, their results are comparable, meaning that comparable estimates of performance of your students you will be able to benchmark the performance of and information about their learning environment and the European Schools with that of national education attitudes. systems from around the world. This will allow you to both gauge how prepared your students are to Furthermore, the PBTS also provides you with participate in a globalised society and set goals some insights concerning your students’ social and against the best school systems worldwide. emotional skills, an increasingly important aspect in education and that is believed to be core in the The PBTS also provides you with a better capacity of students to be able to adapt and navigate understanding of the challenges faced by low- the fast-paced changing world that we live in. performing students in the European Schools, thus allowing you to put in place specific targeted measures Given our global, knowledge-based economy, it has and practices aimed at reducing all achievement and become more important than ever before to compare developmental gaps that may exist. students not only to local or national standards, but also to the performance of the world’s top-performing school systems. © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 9  Cognitive skills: What students in the Insights on the impact of learning and European Schools know and can do: this assessment in a second language : chapter displays your students’ performance in This chapter summarises the analysis that was reading, mathematics and science and how the conducted to ensure that any studentʼs first European Schools’ results map onto the PISA language did not affect the validity of the proficiency levels. It also explores any performance PBTS assessments. It also reports on the 2. gaps between the highest- and lowest-performing observed distribution of proficiency in each students, between genders and between students with domain for students whose first language was high or low socio-economic backgrounds. the language of the test they sat and students whose first language was not the language of Student voice: Exploring student the test they sat. engagement and how students feel at school: this chapter investigates your students’ self- Finally, the OECD encourages you to take reported motivation for learning, their beliefs in their advantage of the opportunity for peer-learning by own self-efficacy, and their perception of the teaching participating in the PISA for Schools Community. This practices adopted in their classrooms, of their learning online, multilingual forum enables all schools who environment and of their relations with their peers. have received PBTS results to share good practice, pose questions, obtain advice from peers, co-create teaching resources, and participate in webinars and discussions on selected themes moderated by the OECD or national actors. “What is important for citizens to know and be able The major domain in 2018 was reading, as it was in to do?” In response to that question and to the need 2009. Science was the major domain in 2015 and for internationally comparable evidence on student 2006, and mathematics was the major domain in performance, the Organisation for Economic 2003 and 2012 (and will be again in 2022). Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched the triennial survey of 15-year-old students around PISA results reveal what is possible in the world known as the OECD Programme for education by showing what students International Student Assessment, or PISA. PISA in the highest-performing and most assesses the extent to which 15-year-old students have rapidly improving education systems acquired key knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in modern societies. can do. The findings allow policy makers around the world In each round of PISA, one of the three core domains to gauge the knowledge and skills of students in their is tested in detail, requiring nearly half of the total own countries and in their schools in comparison with testing time. those in other countries. Read more About PISA oe.cd/PISA 10 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  2.1 Your sample and your participation Figure 2.1 provides a short summary of the European Schools’ participation in the PBTS, including both sample characteristics and information about the logistics of your participation. 2. The accompanying Reader’s Guide (www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-for-schools) provides additional information about the eligibility of schools to participate in the PBTS and the sampling procedures that are used to select schools and students. Figure 2.1 Participation summary Source: data for the European Union and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 11  The PISA for Schools Community aims to support educators from participating schools in the following ways: Give and receive support: Educators can Establish an international professional get their questions answered and share their network: Educators can build their network with ideas, concrete practices and materials for the international educators. They can also develop areas of improvement. their reputation and gain recognition from an 2. Enhance professional knowledge and international audience. skills: Educators can improve their knowledge Stay informed of latest research on in the subject matter as well as pedagogical skills. education and interact with OECD They can also further develop skills in coaching personnel and experts: through regular peers. webinars and alerts for new OECD publications, educators can stay updated with the latest research in education and benefit from the interaction with OECD personnel and experts. Read more about The PISA for Schools Community www.oecdpisaforschools.org 12 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  2.2 Understanding the European Schools’ results This report presents the results for the European 1) All students who were able to take the test in only Schools based on their participation in the PISA- one of the three available languages, because their based Test for Schools (PBTS) in 2022. The assessment L1 or their L2 was a language other than one of the 2. measures 15-year-old students’ competences in three test languages, were assigned to the only test reading, mathematics and science. Because the language they were capable of sitting. PBTS is based on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the European Schools can 2) Students whose L1 was German or French and L2 compare their results with those from over 80 countries was English were assigned to be tested in their L1. and economies that have participated in the various cycles of PISA. 3) Students whose L1 was French and L2 was German, were assigned to be tested in German. The accompanying Reader’s Guide (www.oecd.org/ pisa/pisa-for-schools) represents a useful toolkit to 4) Students whose L1 was English or German and L2 better understand the results. Throughout the report, was French were assigned to be tested in their L1. links are available to gain additional insights based on OECD and PISA evidence. 5) Students whose L1 was English and L2 was German, were assigned to be tested in German. In interpreting the average results in reading and science in the following chapters, it is important to bear Table 2.1 shows how many valid student responses in mind the unique testing conditions in the European were recorded for each test language, by whether Schools. The European Schools administered the PBTS they were part of the L1 or the L2 language group. in three different languages: English, French and The largest group were students for whom English is German. In each of the three test languages, there not their first language, taking the test in English. The were students for whom administrative data indicated largest L1 group were French-speakers. It can be the test was in their first language (L1) and students for observed that the targeted minimum of 500 students whom the test was in their first foreign language, which for each test language was achieved for all three is also commonly referred to as second language (L2), languages. even when a student speaks more than two languages. Table 2.1 Number of students by language The OECD assigned test languages to students. The and language group goal was to ensure a minimum of 500 students took each test language and to ensure a balance of L1 and L2 as much as possible in each school in order to obtain reliable statistics of the aggregated results. This requirement is important in order to ensure the reliability of analysis. The OECD did the language assignment in five steps, based on the school administrative data. The steps are summarised below: © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 13  One necessary condition to make sure a test question The essential point to note when reading all of the is valid, is to ensure it is equivalently difficult for reported average scores in this report for Reading, all students of the same ability level, regardless of Mathematics and Science, is that the scores accurately the language the test question is presented in, and represent the average proficiency of 15-year- regardless of any personal attributes of the test-taker old students in the European Schools, in Reading, other than their ability in the domain of interest. Mathematics, and Science in the language of the test. 2. To ensure the items had stable difficulties when being Had the L2 students been tested in their L1 in Reading attempted by L1 and L2 students, and by students and Science, the average proficiency scores may well taking the test in each of the three languages, have been different for that group - probably higher - psychometric analyses were carried out. Test questions and then the average scores for the European Schools which showed instability in their difficulties were in Reading and Science would also have been higher. accounted for in the calculation of student-level scores, In Mathematics, this is not the case, as it is shown making it possible to still report scores on the PISA in Chapter 5 that the L1 and L2 students performed international scale with no bias due to language or similarly, indicating language proficiency was not a language background. factor that affected how students performed in the test. However, even though the test questions are equally difficult for L1 and L2 students of the same proficiency level, students’ proficiency in the language of the test is likely to still be a factor that affects their performance in domains that rely heavily on language. Chapter 5 examines this subject, and reports that Reading and Science scores for L2 students are likely to have been affected by the students’ levels of proficiency in the language of the test. 14 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  3. COGNITIVE SKILLS: WHAT STUDENTS IN THE 3. EUROPEAN SCHOOLS KNOW AND CAN DO This chapter provides an overview of the European Schools’ performance on the PISA-based Test for Schools. It focuses on the performance of different groups of students in the European Schools and the kinds of tasks that they can perform in each domain. 3.1 Analysing student performance in the European Schools Are 15-year-old students in the European Schools in the European Union (EU) and in school systems prepared to meet the challenges that the future holds? around the world. The results can be used as a gauge Can they analyse, reason and communicate their ideas of how prepared students in the European Schools are effectively? Have they developed the competencies, to succeed in a global economy. skills and knowledge that are essential in order to successfully participate in 21st century societies? In the European Schools, in order to keep comparability of the average scores across the PISA measures the competencies, skills and knowledge schools, student weights are applied when calculating of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics and statistics. It enables us to cancel out the influence of science around the world. The PISA-based Test for the different proportions of the L1 and the L2 students Schools (PBTS) results of the European Schools allow across the schools. Therefore, the student performances you to compare your students’ levels of proficiency in of the European Schools shown in this report are the these three domains with the levels of other students weighted average of the L1 and the L2 students. © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 15  Figure 3.1 Student performance in reading, mathematics and science The EU statistics in this report were calculated by taking the simple average of the set of corresponding statistics computed in each of the 27 member countries of the EU that have data reported for PISA 2018 [https://www. oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm]. No weighting was applied, so each country contributed equally to the EU average. Standard errors (SE) were calculated in a similar way applying a formula combining standard errors from each country. Figure 3.1 displays the results of the European Schools in the three domains – reading, mathematics and science – 3. next to the ones of the EU and of the OECD in PISA 2018. It also shows the averages for the L1 and L2 groups. For each of the European Schools’ average values, the figure also shows its 95% confidence interval. If the respective score of the EU, the OECD, or the L1 or L2 group is not comprised in the interval, then the difference between this score and the score of the European Schools can be assumed to be statistically significant. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data 16 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  As stated previously in Section 2.2, the average scores for the European Schools in reading and science should be interpreted in the knowledge that not all students were tested in their L1. The averages, then, represent the average performance of 15-year-old students in the European Schools in the language of the test. The extent to which this has affected the European Schools average is difficult to estimate precisely. However, a comparison of the group means for the L1 and L2 subgroups to the European Schools average may give some indication. Table 3.1 reports the average scores for the L1 and L2 groups in each domain, with the European Schools average for reference. 3. Table 3.1 Average scores in reading, mathematics and science for the European Schools, and the L1 and L2 sub-groups It can be observed that in reading, the L1 group average is 15 scale score points higher than the European Schools average, while the L2 average is 12 scale score points lower. In science, the L1 average is 10 points higher than the European Schools average and the L2 group mean 8 points lower. These differences are statistically significant with a 95% confidence level. If one was to extrapolate from the averages of the L1 group, then it is possible that were all students in the European Schools tested in their L1, the reading and science averages for the European Schools could have been 10 to 15 points higher. © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 17  Results from PISA indicate the quality and equity of learning outcomes attained around the world, and allow educators and policy makers to learn from the policies and practices applied in other countries. The results of the PISA 2018 survey, the seventh round of the triennial assessment, can be found in its six volumes: Volume I, What Students Know and Can Volume IV, Are Students Smart about Do, provides a detailed examination of student Money?, examines 15-year-old students’ performance in reading, mathematics and science, understanding about money matters in the 21 and describes how performance has changed countries and economies that participated in this since previous PISA assessments. optional assessment. 3. Volume II, Where All Students Can Volume V, Effective Policies, Successful Succeed, examines gender differences in student Schools, analyses the policies and practices performance, and the links between students’ used in schools and school systems, and their socio-economic status and immigrant background, relationship with education outcomes more on the one hand, and student performance and generally. well-being, on the other. Volume VI, Are Students Ready to Volume III, What School Life Means for Thrive in Global Societies?, explores Students’ Lives, focuses on the physical and students’ ability to examine local, global and emotional health of students, the role of teachers intercultural issues, understand and appreciate and parents in shaping the school climate, and different perspectives and world views, interact the social life at school. The volume also examines respectfully with others, and take responsible indicators of student well-being, and how these action towards sustainability and collective well- are related to the school climate. being. Discover the most recently published and upcoming PISA Volumes oe.cd/publications 18 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  3.2 Student performance in reading The PBTS assesses several different cognitive As it is not possible to include sufficient items in the processes, or elements, involved in reading. These PBTS to report on each element as a separate sub- elements represent the mental strategies, approaches scale, these five elements are organised into three or purposes that readers use to negotiate their way sub-scales for reporting on reading literacy: into, around and between texts. Locating information: this element involves 3. Five elements guide the development going to the information space provided and of the reading literacy assessment navigating in that space to locate and retrieve one or more distinct pieces of information. tasks in PISA: retrieving information, Understanding: this element involves forming a broad understanding, processing what is read to make internal sense of developing an interpretation, a text, whether this is clearly stated or not. reflecting on and evaluating the Evaluating and reflecting: this element content of a text, and reflecting on involves drawing upon knowledge, ideas or and evaluating the form of a text. attitudes beyond the text in order to relate the information provided within the text to one’s own conceptual and experiential frames of reference. The PISA assessment frameworks define competence Rather than assessing whether students can reproduce as far more than the capacity to reproduce what they have learned, PISA measures whether accumulated knowledge. students can extrapolate from what they have learned and apply their competences in novel situations. According to PISA, competence is the ability to successfully meet Tasks that can be solved through simple memorisation or with pre-set algorithms are those that are also complex demands in varied easiest to digitise and automate. These types of skills, contexts through the mobilisation of therefore, will be less relevant in a modern knowledge- psychosocial resources, including based society and are not the focus of PISA. knowledge and skills, motivation, attitudes, emotions and other social and behavioural components. Read more about The PISA Assessment Frameworks oe.cd/publications © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 19  Figure 3.2 Student performance in sub-scales of reading While not all PBTS tasks engage students in every sub-scale, items can be classified according to the dominant process. Figure 3.2 shows the results of the European Schools, and the L1 and L2 groups in the three sub-scales of reading, next to the results of the European Union and of the OECD in PISA 2018. For each of the European Schoolsʼ values, the figure also shows its 95% confidence interval. If the respective score of the European Union, OECD , or the L1 and L2 groups is not comprised in the interval, then the difference between this score and the score of the European Schools can be assumed to be statistically significant. 3. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data 20 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  The averages for the European Schools represent the population tested, that includes students testing in their L1 and students tested in their L2. The averages for these two groups in the sub-scales of reading literacy are reported in Table 3.2, and they reveal the same pattern as the overall average: L2 students have a lower level of proficiency in the language of the test than their L1 peers. The differences are all statistically significant at the 95% level. In particular, note that the L2 score in Understanding is 40 points below the L1 score. This is a large difference, and suggests that L2 students found that skill particularly difficult to demonstrate in the language of the test. Table 3.2 Average scores in reading sub-scales for the L1 and L2 3. groups © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 21  3.3 Student performance in mathematics The PISA mathematics framework Each of these elements draws on fundamental defines the theoretical underpinnings mathematical capabilities, and, in turn, on the problem-solver’s detailed mathematical knowledge, as of the PISA mathematics assessment detailed below: based on the fundamental concept of mathematical literacy, relating Formulate: the action begins with the “problem mathematical reasoning and three 3. in context.” The problem-solver tries to identify processes, or elements, of the the mathematics relevant to the problem situation, problem-solving (mathematical formulates the situation mathematically according modeling) cycle. to the concepts and relationships identified, and makes assumptions to simplify the situation. The The PBTS assessment measures how effectively schools problem-solver thus transforms the “problem in are preparing students to use mathematics in every context” into a “mathematical problem” that can aspect of their personal, civic and professional lives, be solved using mathematics. as constructive, engaged and reflective 21st century Employ: to solve the problem using mathematics, citizens. the problem-solver employs mathematical concepts, facts, procedures and reasoning to The framework schematises three elements of the obtain the “mathematical results.” This stage mathematical modeling cycle: formulate, employ and usually involves mathematical manipulation, interpret. transformation and computation, with and without tools. Interpret outcomes: the “mathematical results” then need to be interpreted in terms of the original problem to obtain the “results in context.” The problem-solver thus must interpret, apply and evaluate mathematical outcomes and their reasonableness in the context of a real-world problem. 22 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Figure 3.3 Student performance in sub-scales of mathematics While not all PBTS tasks engage students in every stage of the modeling cycle, items can be classified according to the dominant process. Figure 3.3 shows the results of the European Schools, and the L1 and L2 groups in the three sub-scales of mathematics, next to the results of the European Union and of the OECD in PISA 2012. For each of the European Schoolsʼ values, the figure also shows its 95% confidence interval. If the respective score of the European Union, the OECD, or the L1 and L2 groups is not comprised in the interval, then the difference between this score and the score of the European Schools can be assumed to be statistically significant. 3. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2013), PISA 2012 database, oecd.org/pisa/data © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 23  The averages for the European Schools represent the population tested, that includes students testing in their L1 and students tested in their L2. The averages for these two groups in the sub-scales of mathematics are reported in Table 3.3. The differences between the L1 and L2 groups in Formulate and Interpret outcomes are not statistically significant at the 95% level, so no inferences should be drawn from them. However, the difference in the Employ sub-scale is statistically significant at the 95% level, with the L2 group having a higher average proficiency than the L1 group. This is an interesting finding, but the difference is approximately 0.1 of a standard deviation, and so the magnitude of the difference is relatively modest. 3. Table 3.3 Average scores in mathematics sub-scales for the L1 and L2 groups 24 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Learning happens well before children start school Learning strategies are defined and continues throughout adulthood. It happens as cognitive and metacognitive in the family, the neighborhood and in isolation. processes employed by students Above all, it happens in the classroom. It is in schools where students most strongly experience the joys as they attempt to learn something and frustrations that come along with learning, and new. In PISA, the main strategies where many of them, mostly inadvertently, learn how students use to learn mathematics to learn. Even if most education systems focus on are grouped into three broad “what” is learned, rather than “how” students learn, approaches: memorisation, 3. most students inevitably develop particular learning elaboration and control strategies. strategies to complete school assignments and prepare for exams. Which strategies they adopt can make all Students differ in how intensively they use these types the difference in their learning. of learning strategies. Some feel more comfortable with particular strategies; others may adopt different As an integral part of the learning process, students’ strategies depending on their teachers’ expectations, learning strategies have a direct influence on their motivation, the type of task and, more generally, academic performance and thus have an impact on on their learning environment. Students may also students’ daily lives. In addition to this immediate give different weight to particular learning strategies influence, learning strategies can also have long-term when they are faced with new information, depending consequences for students. Rote learning, for instance, on in which phase of the learning process they find can be useful in certain school environments, but themselves: identification, comprehension, retention or relying on that strategy alone may seriously penalise retrieval. After all, “no single strategy is a panacea”. students later on in their educational career or in many work situations where simply storing and reproducing information may not be enough to get a job done. Sooner or later, a lack of deep, critical, creative and flexible thinking becomes a problem, particularly in innovative societies where the demand for non-routine skills is rising. Read more about Students’ learning strategies in Mathematics oe.cd/il/teach © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 25  3.4 Student performance in science Performance in science requires three According to the PISA definition, a science-literate elements of knowledge: scientific person is able and willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology. competences, knowledge of the standard methodological procedures This requires the necessary competences to used in science, and knowledge of successfully: science subject content. 3. Explain: this element implies being able These three elements are interconnected. Explaining to recognise, offer and evaluate scientific scientific and technological phenomena, for instance, explanations for a range of natural and demands knowledge of the content of science. technological phenomena. Evaluating scientific inquiry and interpreting evidence Evaluate and plan: this element implies being scientifically also require an understanding of how able to describe, design and appraise scientific scientific knowledge is established and the degree of investigations and propose ways of addressing confidence with which it is held. questions scientifically. Scientifically interpret: this element implies being able to analyse and evaluate data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations, and draw appropriate scientific conclusions. 26 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Figure 3.4 Student performance in sub-scales of science While not all PBTS tasks require all of these competences, items can be classified according to the dominant one. Figure 3.4 shows the results of the European Schools, and the L1 and L2 groups in the three sub-scales of science, next to the results of the European Union and of the OECD in PISA 2015. For each of the European Schoolsʼ values, the figure also shows its 95% confidence interval. If the respective score of the European Union, the OECD, or the L1 and L2 groups is not comprised in the interval, then the difference between this score and the score of the European Schools can be assumed to be statistically significant. 3. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2016), PISA 2015 database, oecd.org/pisa/data © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 27  The averages for the European Schools represent the population tested, that includes students testing in their L1 and students tested in their L2. The averages for these two groups in the sub-scales of science are reported in Table 3.4, and they reveal the same pattern as the overall average: L2 students have demonstrated a lower level of proficiency in science. The differences are all statistically significant at the 95% level. The differences are likely due to L2 students having a lower level of proficiency in the language of the test than their L1 peers. Table 3.4 Average scores in science sub-scales for the L1 and L2 groups 3. 28 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Science permeates all aspects of modern life. It is Several studies indicate that all around us, from the humble toaster to the mighty instructional practices in science rocket putting satellites into orbit. Science’s record in could have a more significant effect improving our living circumstances through medicine, communication, transport and many other fields is on students’ science performance undeniable. and attitudes than teachers’ experience and advanced degrees. In today’s world, proficiency in science is not a luxury Indeed, what teachers enact in but a necessity. According to the United States Bureau the classroom has the potential to 3. of Labour Statistics, in 2015, 8,6 million jobs in the engage students with science or United States (representing 6,2% of all jobs) were alienate them from it. This, in turn, in fields related to science, technology, engineering highlights the need to identify the and mathematics. Jobs in science and mathematics, in particular, are expected to grow at an unprecedented core teaching practices that have a rate of 28,2% between 2014 and 2024, compared to positive impact on students’ science 6,5% growth in all other professions. performance and attitudes. This rise will be accompanied by the progressive OECD work shows that the negative association automation of routine and low-skilled jobs. Figures between inquiry-based science teaching and science from the World Bank show that a wide range of jobs performance is greatly attenuated when lessons are – from truck drivers to finance professionals – have delivered in disciplined science classes. This approach a high probability of being automated in the coming could help close the gender gap between girls and years, with technology entirely or largely replacing boys when it comes to attitudes towards science and to routine tasks performed by human workers. This the decision to pursue a career in STEM-related fields. evidence underscores the importance of science in the future, as students who perform well in science are The work also shows that teacher-directed instruction more likely to pursue careers in this field and to find is a reliable strategy that is positively associated good jobs. with students’ science outcomes regardless of school climate and resources. Adaptive teaching is positively correlated with science performance in the majority of countries, particularly in countries known for the use of personalised learning approaches, while teacher feedback is weakly but positively associated with science performance once students’ achievement in mathematics and reading is accounted for. Read more about The relationship between science teaching strategies and students’ science-related outcomes oe.cd/il/scienceteaching © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 29  3.5 Performance in reading, mathematics and science by school One of the unique aspects of the European Schools is the geographical distribution of the schools across six different countries. Each country where there is one or more European School also participates in PISA, so there are some comparisons that can be made between the schools and the performance of the national education systems of the country in which they are located. Table 3.5 presents the average reading, science and mathematics 3. score for each European School along with the averages (from PISA 2018) for the countries in which the schools are located, the EU averages, the European Schools averages, and the OECD averages. This information is provided as a means of observing the high-performing nature of the schools in their country contexts, as well as in the context of the EU more broadly. It is not provided for the purposes of ranking the individual European Schools by performance – such ‘league tables’ are explicitly discouraged in accordance with the Guidelines for the Availability and Use of the PISA-based Test for Schools. 30 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Table 3.5 Average scores in reading, mathematics and science for the European Schools, selected countries, the EU and the OECD 3. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from PISA 2018. *For the comparability of Spain’s Reading score, see PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, Annex A9. © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 31  3.6 The European Schools’ results across PISA proficiency levels In order for students to thrive in the Students who reach the top levels (Levels 5 and 6) are 21st century, it is paramount that well on their way to becoming the skilled knowledge workers of tomorrow. they are able to demonstrate skills and competences that will allow Students who perform at the intermediate levels 3. them to participate productively in (Levels 2, 3 and 4) are able to demonstrate skills life as they continue their studies and and competences that will allow them to participate enter the labour force. According productively in life as they continue their studies and to PISA, different levels of skills enter the labour force. However, students who perform and competences at age 15 can below baseline Level 2 are at risk of poor educational be associated with different labour and labour-market outcomes. outcomes. According to the domain, PISA data allow for additional breakdowns of proficiency levels for PISA results group student performance according to students performing below Level 2. For the purpose of six proficiency levels for each subject, from the best this report, though, this additional itemisation has not performing students (Level 6) to the lowest performing been included in the analysis. ones (Below Level 2). Level 2 is used as a reference and baseline group, and represents the level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the competences that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers and citizens. 32 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Figure 3.5 Student proficiency levels in reading, mathematics and science Figure 3.5 summarises how students in the European Schools perform in terms of proficiency levels. The results of the European Schools are shown next to the mean performance obtained by students across schools in the European Union and in the OECD in PISA 2018. 3. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data The OECD collected many videos profiling specific policies and practices from strong- performing or improving countries and economies. Would you like to know more from their experiences? Here you can find some! oe.cd/strongperf © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 33  Reading: The reading domain of the assessment Science: The science domain measures student measures the active, purposeful and functional ability to explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate application of reading in a range of situations and and design scientific inquiry, and interpret data and for various purposes. Students who are proficient at evidence scientifically. Students at the highest levels the highest levels are capable of critically evaluating of science proficiency are sufficiently skilled in and unfamiliar texts and building hypotheses about knowledgeable about science to be able to creatively them, drawing on specialised knowledge and and autonomously apply their knowledge and skills to accommodating concepts that may be contrary to various situations, including unfamiliar ones. expectations. 3. At the baseline level of proficiency in science (Level At the other end of the performance scale, PISA has 2), students can draw on everyday content knowledge defined Level 2 as a baseline level of proficiency to identify an appropriate scientific explanation, at which students begin to demonstrate the reading demonstrating the competences that will enable them competences that will enable them to participate to participate actively in situations related to science effectively and productively in life. and technology. Mathematics: The mathematics part of the assessment measures student capacity to formulate, employ and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts. Students who reach Levels 5 and 6 in mathematics are capable of developing and working with models in complex situations, identifying constraints and specifying assumptions. Students who perform at the baseline level of mathematics proficiency (Level 2) can employ basic algorithms, formulae, procedures or conventions and they can interpret and recognise situations that require no more than direct inference. 34 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  3.7 Exploring the performance of girls and boys PISA 2018 data show that within- A comparison of results in reading performance schools, on average, girls perform between 2009, when reading was also the main subject assessed in PISA, and 2018 shows that the slightly – albeit significantly – better gender gap in reading performance narrowed over than boys in reading, while boys time in 36 countries and economies. However, in 11 perform slightly – albeit significantly of these countries the narrowing of the gender gap – better than girls in mathematics 3. in reading was due not to an improvement in boys’ and science. These results however, performance but to a decline in girls’ performance. vary across countries and economies. Are there achievement gaps according to gender in the European Schools? How might those gaps compare to gaps in the European Union and around the world? Among the subjects of science, mathematics and But for each of these findings, reading, science is the one where average gender there are considerable variations differences in performance in PISA are smallest. across countries and years. This However, overall similar average performance in indicates that gender disparities in science does not reflect the many girls who have performance do not stem from innate difficulty achieving at the highest levels of proficiency differences in aptitude, but rather – and the large number of boys who struggle to from factors that parents, teachers, acquire basic skills. In all three domains, boys show policy makers and opinion leaders larger variation in performance than girls, meaning can influence. that the best-performing boys are far ahead of the lowest-achieving boys. Among girls, the difference A collective effort to encourage student attitudes that between the top and lowest performers is narrower. are conducive to success, among both boys and girls, and to change the behaviours that impede learning can give boys and girls equal opportunities to realise their full potential and to contribute to society with their unique, individual capacities. Read more about The policy implications of gender difference in performance oe.cd/il/PISA15vol1 © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 35  Figure 3.6 Student performance in reading, mathematics and science for girls and boys Figure 3.6 shows how girls and boys perform in reading, mathematics and science in the European Schools, compared with students in other schools in the European Union and in the OECD in PISA 2018. There are three sets of charts, one for each domain. Markers with a solid fill indicate that the achievement gap between the two genders is statistically significant with a 95% confidence level. 3. Note: statistically significant differences are shown by filled shapes. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data 36 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Figure 3.6 shows that there are statistically significant gaps in performance between girls and boys in all three domains. The Reading and Mathematics results are consistent with the PISA 2018 results, and the direction of the differences is also the same: girls outperform boys in Reading, and boys outperform girls in Mathematics. In Science, boys in the European Schools have performed higher than girls, which is different from trends in the EU and the OECD. For the L1 and L2 groups, the directions of the gender gaps are consistent with the figure above, as can be seen in Table 3.6. Girls outperform boys in Reading in both the L1 and L2 groups; boys outperform girls in Mathematics and Science in both the L1 and L2 groups. All of the differences between boys and girls are statistically significant 3. with a 95% confidence level. Table 3.6 Average scores in reading, mathematics and science for Girls and Boys by L1 and L2 groups. © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 37  3.8 Measuring the performance gap between the highest- and lowest-performing students This and the following sections of the European If, for example, an entity’s result refers to the scores Schools’ report focus on equity, with special attention of the top 25% of students within-schools in terms to the results of specific groups of students within the of socio-economic status, this result is produced by European Schools. Thus, these sections will primarily calculating the average score of the top 25% of compare the European Schools’ results with within- students in terms of socio-economic status in each 3. schools results, and not within-country results, from school in a country or economy. The mean scores other countries and economies. Unlike a within- from each school are then averaged to produce the country result, a within-schools result is a “mean of mean score within-schools of the top 25% of students means” that represents all schools in a country or in terms of socio-economic status in a country or economy. economy. In effect, the information represents the results of the average school in a country or economy. 38 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Figure 3.7 Student performance in reading, mathematics and science for the highest- and lowest-performing students Figure 3.7 shows the difference in performance between the top and bottom quartiles of students in the European Schools. There are three sets of charts, one for each domain. In each set of charts, the European Schoolsʼ result is displayed next to the average within-school results of the European Union and the OECD in PISA 2018. For each domain, the top marker represents the average performance among the top 25% of students in the European Schools (highest-performing students). The bottom marker, instead, represents the average performance among the bottom 25% of students in the European Schools perform (lowest- performing students). Markers with a solid fill indicate that the achievement gap between highest- and lowest- 3. performing student quartiles is statistically significant with a 95% confidence level. Note: statistically significant differences are shown by filled shapes. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 39  Additional investigation was conducted into the proportions of L1 and L2 students in the top quartile of each domain. PISA for Schools does not produce individual student ability estimates, so a proxy measure was used (an estimate of the mean of each student’s posterior proficiency distribution). There are caveats when using this approach, but for the purpose of initial investigation in order to identify whether there may be a need for more precise analysis, the methodology is acceptable since the sample size is sufficiently large to perform this analysis. Within the top 25% of students in Mathematics, 57% were L2 students. In Reading the percentage was 50% and in Science: 54%. So, in the top quartiles of students, the proportion of L2 students to L1 students was noticeably larger in Mathematics, slightly larger in Science, and equal in Reading. In the bottom quartile, however, the percentages of L2 students were: Mathematics 55%, Science 63%, Reading 64%. This is likely to indicate that 3. proficiency in the language of the test is a confounding variable for students below a certain level of proficiency (because the difference is not observable in the top quartile). In Chapter V, there is a more thorough investigation of the distribution of proficiency in the L1 and L2 groups, as well as an examination of how the effect applies across the distribution through an equipercentile comparison. 40 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Analyses show that poor In addition, in schools with larger concentrations of low performers, the quality of educational resources performance at age 15 is not the is lower, and the incidence of teacher shortage is result of any single risk factor, higher, on average across OECD countries, even after but rather of a combination and accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic accumulation of various barriers and status. disadvantages that affect students throughout their lives. In countries and economies where educational resources are distributed more equitably across 3. While these background factors can affect all schools, there is less incidence of low performance in students, among low performers the combination mathematics, and a larger share of top performers, of risk factors is more detrimental to disadvantaged even when comparing school systems whose than to advantaged students. Indeed, most educational resources are of similar quality. demographic characteristics, as well as the lack of pre-primary education, increase the probability The first step for policy makers is to make tackling low of low performance by a larger margin among performance a priority in their policy agenda and disadvantaged than among advantaged students, on translate it into additional resources. average across OECD countries. An agenda to reduce the incidence of low Low-performing students tend to have less performance can include several actions, such as: perseverance, motivation and self-confidence in creating demanding and supportive learning mathematics than better-performing students, and they environments at school; skip classes or days of school more. Students who have providing remedial support as early as possible; skipped school at least once in the two weeks prior to identifying low performers and designing a the PISA test are almost three times more likely to be tailored policy strategy; low performers in mathematics than students who did offering special programs for immigrant, minority- not skip school. language and rural students; and reducing inequalities in access to early education. Students attending schools where teachers are more supportive and have better morale are less likely to be low performers, while students whose teachers have low expectations for them and are absent more often are more likely to be low performers in mathematics, even after accounting for the socio-economic status of students and schools. Read more about Why low-performing students fall behind and how to help them succeed oe.cd/lowperf © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 41  3.9 Exploring the effect of socio-economic status on student performance in the European Schools To what extent do students in the European Schools Socio-economic status is a broad concept that show gaps in performance according to socio- summarises many different aspects of a student, economic status? And how do the European Schools’ school or school system. In PISA and in the PBTS, socio-economic performance gaps compare with those this concept is measured using information gathered of schools in other countries and economies? from a questionnaire that asks students about 3. their family background. Different variables from PISA data shows that in many countries, even those the student questionnaire – parents’ education, that perform well in PISA, students’ backgrounds parents’ occupations, home possessions representing continue to influence their opportunities to benefit from material wealth, and the number of books and other education and develop their skills. educational resources available in the home – make up the PISA index of economic, social and cultural High income families often invest in buying books, status (ESCS) which is also used in the PBTS. high-quality pre-schooling and daycare, enrichment activities, and private tutoring if needed. Low incomes As a general reference, the ESCS index is usually adversely affects parents’ ability to nurture and comprised between -3,5 and +2,0 at a country level, provide for their children’s needs, and the experience with lower values indicating lower socio-economic of poverty during childhood and adolescence is often status. The ESCS index is built in a way that the value associated with slower cognitive development and of 0,0 corresponds to the average OECD economic, poorer health. social and cultural status, and is standardised so that a value of 1 equals a difference of 1 standard deviation That is why equity in education – ensuring that from the OECD average of 0,0. For additional education outcomes are the result of students’ abilities, details about the ESCS index, readers can consult the will and effort, rather than their personal circumstances Reader’s Guide and the PBTS Technical Report. – lies at the heart of ensuring opportunities for all and inclusive growth. PISA results show that educational excellence and equity can be Ensuring that the most talented, rather than the achieved within the same school wealthiest, students obtain access to the best education system. That is, students can be opportunities is also a way to use resources effectively and raise education and social outcomes in general. high-achievers on average while the influence of socio-economic status on their performance can be relatively small. 42 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Equity in education is a matter PISA is an assessment of the cumulative learning that has occurred since birth. Investments in early of design and concerted policy childhood education bring relatively large returns efforts. Achieving greater equity in as children progress through school. By contrast, education is not only a social justice intervening when students have already fallen behind imperative, it is also a way to use is often more expensive and less effective, even if skills resources more effectively, increase can be developed at all ages. the supply of skills that fuel economic growth, and promote social For most countries, comprehensive education policy 3. cohesion. As such, equity should must also focus on increasing socio-economic inclusion and enabling more families to provide better support be one of the key objectives in any for their children’s education. For others, it may also strategy to improve an education mean improving school offerings and raising the system. quality of education across the board. And most importantly, high levels of equity and performance PISA shows that, in most participating countries and should be seen as complementary rather than economies, socio-economic status and an immigrant competing objectives. background are associated with significant differences in student performance. Yet PISA also shows that the relationship between students’ background and their outcomes in education varies widely across countries. In some high-performing countries, this relationship is weaker than average – implying that high achievement and equity in education outcomes are not mutually exclusive. This underlines PISA’s definition of equity as high performance for students from all backgrounds, rather than as small variations in student performance only. Read more about The policy implications of differences in equity oe.cd/il/PISA15vol1 © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 43  Figure 3.8 Student performance in reading, mathematics and science for the most and the least socio-economically advantaged student quartiles Figure 3.8 shows the difference in performance between the most and the least socio-economically advantaged students in the European Schools next to corresponding, within-school results of the European Union and the OECD in PISA 2018. For each domain, the figure presents for the European Schools, the European Union and the OECD the average performance of all students and of the top and bottom 25% of students according to their ESCS index (the most and the least socio-economically advantaged students). Markers with a solid fill indicate that the 3. achievement gap between the two groups is statistically significant with a 95% confidence level. Note: statistically significant differences are shown by filled shapes. Source: data for the EU and the OECD were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data 44 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Equity in education is promoted by removing obstacles Trends in equity are also reflected to the development of talent that stem from economic in changes in the average impact and social circumstances over which individual of socio-economic status on students have no control, including unequal access to educational resources in their family and school performance. Over the past environments. decade, the average difference in performance observed between One of the ways PISA examines equity is by looking at students from different socio- how well a student’s socio-economic status predicts his economic groups decreased by 3. or her performance (what PISA calls the strength of the between 5 and 13 score points in socio-economic gradient). several countries. Recent trends in equity are best analysed by Was progress in equity driven by improvements comparing the evolution of this indicator between in performance among disadvantaged students? PISA 2006 and PISA 2015, two rounds of PISA when Trends in student “resiliency” suggest that, in many science was the focus of the assessment. countries, this was the case. Resilient students are those from disadvantaged backgrounds who beat the Over the past decade, equity improved modestly in odds against them and perform at high levels when many PISA-participating countries and economies. compared with students of the same socio-economic In 2006, on average across OECD countries, 14% of status from around the world. the variation in students’ science performance could be explained by students’ socio-economic status; by 2015, 13% of the variation in performance could be so explained. But in a few countries the socio-economic gradient weakened by between 2 and 7 percentage points. Progress towards greater equity in education is even more commendable as many of these countries saw rising income inequality over the same period. Read more about Where equity in education improved over the past decade oe.cd/il/equity © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 45  3.10 The European Schools’ performance in the socio-economic context of the European Union Figure 3.9 shows the European Schools’ results in the time if the PBTS were administered continuously in the socio-economic context of all schools from the European Schools. European Union that participated in PISA 2018 for the reading domain. The scale on the left side of the figure It is useful to compare the European Schools’ results (the y-axis) represents the performance on the PISA not only with all schools from the European Union in 3. reading scale. The scale on the bottom (the x-axis) PISA 2018, but in particular with those whose students refers to the socio-economic status of students as come from similar socio-economic backgrounds as measured by the PISA index of economic, social and yours. These can be found throughout the vertical cultural status (ESCS). shaded area. What is important to keep in mind when reading this What is the performance of the chart is that as values increase (from left to right), the European Schools compared with the average socio-economic status of students increases. other schools in this shaded area? Thus, schools that are plotted towards the lower end of the scale (-1,5 for example) will appear on the How does the performance of the left side of the figure, and one may conclude that European Schools compare with its students in these schools, on average, come from more expected performance (the diagonal disadvantaged backgrounds. Schools plotted with line) given the socio-economic higher ESCS values, such as +1,0 or higher, (towards background of your students? the right side of the x-axis) serve students primarily from more advantaged backgrounds. Furthermore, it can be helpful to compare the European Schools’ results with schools in the The diagonal line in the figure (which is the regression horizontal shaded area whose students perform line) indicates the relationship between socio- similarly but come from different socio-economic economic status and performance based on the backgrounds. Is the European Schools achieving performance of all schools participating in PISA comparable performance with more or less 2018. Schools well above the diagonal line perform advantaged students? better than what would reasonably be expected in the European Union given the socio-economic status of In reading the following figures, note that the average their students, while those well below do not perform for the European Schools that is shown is the overall as well as what would reasonably be expected. estimate, that includes both the students who took the test in their L1 and the students who took the test in There are also two shaded areas in each figure. The their L2. As reported earlier in this chapter, had all horizontal shaded area represents the confidence students been testing in their L1, the averages may well interval around the European Schools’ score on have been higher in the Reading and Science domains the PISA scale for reading. The vertical shaded only (Mathematics is not affected by L1/L2). If we use area represents the confidence interval around the the L1 means as an indicator of what could have been, European Schools’ value on the ESCS index. Where the Reading estimate may have been about 15 points they overlap represents the area in which the European higher, and the Science mean may have been about Schools’ results would be expected to be 95% of the 10 points higher. 46 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Figure 3.9 How the European Schools’ results in reading compare with schools in the European Union in PISA 2018 3. Note: size of the dot is proportional to the number of students enrolled at the school. Source: data for schools in the European Union were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data © OECD 2022 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 47  Figure 3.10 How the European Schools’ results in mathematics compare with schools in the European Union in PISA 2018 3. Note: size of the dot is proportional to the number of students enrolled at the school. Source: data for schools in the European Union were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data 48 HOW THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS COMPARES INTERNATIONALLY 2022 © OECD 2022  Figure 3.11 How the European Schools’ results in science compare with schools in the European Union in PISA 2018 3. Note: size of the dot is proportional to the number of students enrolled at the school. Source: data for schools in the European Union were obtained from OECD (2019), PISA 2018 database, oecd.org/pisa/data © OEC