copy the linklink copied! Annex B. Additional figures and robustness checks

copy the linklink copied!
Figure B.1. Equity in reading performance and school admissions based on residence
Figure B.1. Equity in reading performance and school admissions based on residence

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933971746

copy the linklink copied!
Figure B.2. Reading performance and school admissions based on academic performance
Figure B.2. Reading performance and school admissions based on academic performance

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933971765

copy the linklink copied!
Figure B.3. Percentage of students in schools whose parents/principal reported school competition, 2012
Percentage of students whose parents/school principal reported a certain number of schools competing for students in the same area
Figure B.3. Percentage of students in schools whose parents/principal reported school competition, 2012

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933971784

copy the linklink copied!
Table B.1. Reading performance, by school practices and social segregation
Robustness checks

Admissions criteria (main)

Admissions criteria (student weights)

Admissions criteria (with average school socio-economic status)

Segregation (2009-2015)

Segregation (2003-2015)

Boy

-35.094

(0.259)

-29.464

(0.507)

-32.982

(0.233)

-35.121

(0.257)

-35.871

(0.210)

Immigrant

-5.214

(0.520)

-11.844

(1.426)

-4.312

(0.494)

-5.231

(0.518)

-10.147

(0.496)

Disadvantaged

-46.575

(1.132)

-45.126

(1.943)

-18.298

(1.088)

-31.740

(1.303)

-28.507

(1.109)

Advantaged

53.704

(1.370)

45.558

(2.807)

25.049

(1.224)

27.391

(1.263)

27.302

(1.089)

School admissions based on academic performance (%)

-0.252

(0.035)

-0.376

(0.069)

-0.368

(0.034)

x Disadvantaged

0.023

(0.014)

0.129

(0.027)

-0.008

(0.012)

x Advantaged

-0.050

(0.013)

-0.058

(0.032)

-0.062

(0.012)

School admissions based on residence (%)

0.204

(0.042)

0.315

(0.094)

0.163

(0.041)

x Disadvantaged

0.137

(0.016)

0.104

(0.030)

-0.029

(0.017)

x Advantaged

-0.127

(0.021)

0.038

(0.041)

0.030

(0.019)

No-diversity index

0.095

(0.165)

0.301

(0.134)

x Disadvantaged

-0.484

(0.078)

-0.621

(0.069)

x Advantaged

1.245

(0.083)

1.273

(0.071)

Private schools (%)

0.237

(0.051)

0.235

(0.061)

0.127

(0.047)

0.196

(0.051)

0.268

(0.041)

x Disadvantaged

0.136

(0.014)

0.170

(0.033)

0.063

(0.013)

0.095

(0.013)

0.069

(0.010)

x Advantaged

-0.199

(0.014)

-0.055

(0.037)

-0.177

(0.012)

-0.173

(0.012)

-0.157

(0.011)

Vocational programmes (%)

0.179

(0.079)

-0.649

(0.187)

0.128

(0.078)

0.115

(0.075)

0.014

(0.038)

x Disadvantaged

0.080

(0.020)

0.114

(0.032)

-0.040

(0.020)

0.003

(0.018)

-0.038

(0.014)

x Advantaged

0.039

(0.022)

-0.050

(0.047)

0.160

(0.019)

0.107

(0.016)

0.067

(0.013)

Grade repetition (%)

-0.013

(0.015)

-0.083

(0.030)

-0.017

(0.014)

-0.001

(0.013)

0.050

(0.010)

x Disadvantaged

-0.020

(0.010)

-0.053

(0.017)

0.006

(0.009)

-0.015

(0.010)

-0.018

(0.007)

x Advantaged

0.026

(0.009)

0.084

(0.022)

-0.069

(0.008)

0.017

(0.009)

0.007

(0.008)

Mean school ESCS

57.550

(0.418)

Intercept

405.906

(3.270)

409.321

(6.186)

460.651

(2.917)

402.838

(2.912)

401.019

(2.679)

Number of observations

1,175,972

1,175,972

1,175,972

1,175,972

1,777,706

0.284

0.311

0.356

0.284

0.302

Country fixed effects

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Cycle fixed effects

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Notes: All analyses are restricted to schools with the modal ISCED level. The results above may thus differ from those estimated on the entire sample of 15-year-old students.

Disadvantaged students are students in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in their own country.

In the second column, individual student weights are used, otherwise they are normalised in such a way that the contributions of all countries are equal, regardless of the size of their population

The strength of the social gradient corresponds to the variation in student performance in one country that is explained by socio-economic status; the slope refers to the score-point difference in performance associated with one-unit increase in ESCS (the R² and coefficient, respectively, of a regression of individual performance on socio-economic status).

For the sake of readability, the strength of the social gradient and the segregation indices have been rescaled from 0 to 100.

Standard errors are indicated in parentheses.

Values that are statistically significant at the 10% level are indicated in italics and those at the 5% level are indicated in bold.

Source: OECD, PISA 2003, PISA 2009 and PISA 2015 Databases.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933971898

copy the linklink copied!
Table B.2. Variation in the main variables

Standard deviation

Range

Total

Within country

Total

Within country

No-diversity index

4.0

1.2

22.0

2.4

Academic segregation

9.0

3.0

42.2

5.7

School admissions based on academic performance (%)

26.4

7.3

95.6

14.0

School admissions based on residence (%)

21.9

5.0

88.2

9.5

Vocational programmes (%)

19.6

1.9

75.6

3.5

Grade repetition (%)

29.7

25.1

99.5

44.2

Private schools (%)

23.1

2.5

97.3

4.7

Notes: All analyses are restricted to schools with the modal ISCED level. The results above may thus differ from those estimated on the entire sample of 15-year-old students.

The standard deviation and range (maximum value - minimum value) are calculated in the total sample (Total) or separately within each country (Within).

Source: OECD, PISA 2009, PISA 2012 and PISA 2015 Databases.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933971917

copy the linklink copied!
Table B.3 [1/2]. Modal grade by country/economy

OECD

Modal ISCED level

Students in the modal ISCED level in the sample

Students in a modal ISCED school in the sample

%

%

Australia

2

86.0

99.4

Austria

3

97.9

98.5

Belgium

3

90.7

97.1

Canada

3

88.4

98.4

Chile

3

94.2

96.2

Czech Republic

2

54.4

100.0

3

45.6

Denmark

2

99.3

99.3

Estonia

2

98.7

99.5

Finland

2

99.8

99.8

France

3

75.9

79.6

Germany

2

96.2

98.5

Greece

3

95.3

95.4

Hungary

3

89.8

90.2

Iceland

2

100.0

100.0

Ireland

2

62.4

100.0

3

37.6

Israel

3

89.1

97.4

Italy

3

98.9

98.9

Japan

3

100.0

100.0

Korea

3

90.9

90.9

Latvia

2

96.3

99.0

Luxembourg

2

56.5

100.0

3

43.5

Mexico

2

39.0

100.0

3

61.0

Netherlands

2

70.5

100.0

New Zealand

3

93.8

100.0

Norway

2

99.9

99.9

Poland

2

99.4

99.4

Portugal

2

34.7

100.0

3

65.3

Slovak Republic

2

47.4

100.0

3

52.6

Slovenia

3

94.9

94.9

Spain

2

99.9

100.0

Sweden

2

98.1

98.1

Switzerland

2

77.0

84.5

Turkey

3

96.8

96.8

United Kingdom

3

99.8

100.0

United States

3

89.8

99.5

Source: OECD, PISA 2015 Database.

* Argentina, Kazakhstan and Malaysia: Coverage is too small to ensure comparability in 2015.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933971936

copy the linklink copied!
Table B.3 [2/2]. Modal grade by country/economy

Partners

Modal ISCED level

Students in the modal ISCED level in the sample

Students in a modal ISCED school in the sample

%

%

Albania

2

37.0

100.0

3

63.0

Algeria

2

76.9

76.9

Brazil

3

77.7

86.4

B-S-J-G (China)

2

63.0

100.0

3

37.0

Bulgaria

3

96.9

97.8

CABA (Argentina)

2

92.5

96.6

Colombia

2

40.3

100.0

3

59.7

Costa Rica

2

53.2

100.0

3

46.8

Croatia

3

99.8

99.8

Dominican Republic

3

79.1

80.3

Georgia

3

77.5

99.3

Hong Kong (China)

3

67.3

99.9

Indonesia

2

52.2

100.0

3

47.8

Jordan

2

100.0

100.0

Kosovo

3

74.4

74.5

Lebanon

3

71.4

77.9

Lithuania

2

100.0

100.0

Macao (China)

2

44.9

100.0

3

55.1

Malta

3

99.7

99.8

Moldova

2

92.4

96.0

Montenegro

3

97.4

97.4

North Macedonia

3

99.8

99.8

Peru

3

74.7

97.2

Qatar

3

79.3

88.0

Romania

2

100.0

100.0

Russia

2

86.5

95.5

Singapore

3

97.9

100.0

Chinese Taipei

2

35.4

100.0

3

64.6

Thailand

3

75.4

92.2

Trinidad and Tobago

2

41.3

100.0

3

58.7

Tunisia

2

34.5

100.0

3

65.5

United Arab Emirates

3

86.5

96.0

Uruguay

2

37.9

100.0

3

62.1

Viet Nam

3

90.9

91.4

Argentina*

2

38.7

100.0

3

61.3

Kazakhstan*

2

63.3

100.0

3

36.7

Malaysia*

3

96.8

100.0

Source: OECD, PISA 2015 Database.

* Argentina, Kazakhstan and Malaysia: Coverage is too small to ensure comparability in 2015.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933971936

Metadata, Legal and Rights

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. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

https://doi.org/10.1787/2592c974-en

© OECD 2019

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.

Annex B. Additional figures and robustness checks