here - TIMSS and PIRLS Home - Boston College

chapter 7: school contexts
in qualified teaching staff, teachers with a specialization in reading, second
language teachers, instructional materials (e.g., textbooks), supplies
(e.g., papers, pencils), school buildings and grounds, heating/cooling and
lighting systems, instructional space (e.g., classrooms), special equipment for
physically disabled students, computers for instructional purposes, computer
software for instructional purposes, computer support staff, library books,
and audio-visual resources. Principals’ average responses were computed
on a 4-point scale: not at all = 1, a little = 2, some = 3, and a lot = 4. Students
were assigned to the high level of the index if their school’s principal had
an average response of less than 2. To achieve such a response average, a
principal would have to reply not at all or some to most of the questions,
implying that resource shortages were not a problem for the school. Students
were assigned to the medium level if their principal’s average was 2 or more
but not less than 3, and to the low level if the average was 3 or more.
Exhibit 7.5 presents, for every participant, the percentage of PIRLS 2006
students at each level of the index, together with their average reading
achievement. For those that also participated in PIRLS 2001, the exhibit
shows the change in percentage of students at each level, and an indication
of whether the change was statistically significant. On average across
countries, the majority (52%) of students were at the high level of the
index (i.e., were attending schools that were not hampered by resource
shortages). Eighty percent or more of the students were at the high level of
the index in the Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, Belgium (Flemish), New
Zealand, Iceland, Sweden, Slovenia, the United States, England, Austria, and
the Canadian province of British Columbia. Although, on average, there
were just 15 percent of students at the low level of the index (i.e., attending
schools where principals reported that resource shortages greatly affected
the provision of instruction), there were some countries with a substantial
percentage of students at this level. Countries with more than 20 percent
of students at the low level included Israel, Chinese Taipei, South Africa,
Qatar, the Russian Federation, Moldova, Iran, Kuwait, Morocco, and
Hong Kong SAR.
255