literacy for life; EFA global monitoring report, 2006 - Institut de ...
literacy for life; EFA global monitoring report, 2006 - Institut de ...
literacy for life; EFA global monitoring report, 2006 - Institut de ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
0<br />
2<br />
0<br />
6<br />
60 / CHAPTER 2<br />
Figure 2.22: Evolution of TIMSS results between 1995 and 2003<br />
Education <strong>for</strong> All Global Monitoring Report<br />
Iran, Isl. Rep.<br />
Cyprus<br />
Romania<br />
Norway<br />
Bulgaria<br />
New Zealand<br />
United States<br />
Slovenia<br />
Slovakia<br />
United Kingdom<br />
(Scotland)<br />
Lithuania<br />
Australia<br />
Swe<strong>de</strong>n<br />
Russian Fed.<br />
Latvia<br />
Hungary<br />
Belgium (Flemish)<br />
Netherlands<br />
Canada (Ontario)<br />
Rep. of Korea<br />
Japan<br />
Hong Kong, China<br />
Singapore<br />
Proportion of stu<strong>de</strong>nts scoring<br />
below the low international<br />
benchmark in mathematics in 2003<br />
23<br />
21<br />
19<br />
18<br />
12<br />
10<br />
10<br />
10<br />
10<br />
10<br />
10<br />
9<br />
8<br />
8<br />
5<br />
5<br />
3<br />
3<br />
2<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
45<br />
1995 to 2003 difference<br />
-9<br />
-6<br />
-6<br />
-4<br />
-3<br />
-2<br />
-2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
-1<br />
-1<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
9<br />
8<br />
Iran, Isl. Rep.<br />
Cyprus<br />
Romania<br />
Norway<br />
Bulgaria<br />
New Zealand<br />
United States<br />
Slovenia<br />
Slovakia<br />
United Kingdom<br />
(Scotland)<br />
Lithuania<br />
Australia<br />
Swe<strong>de</strong>n<br />
Russian Fed.<br />
Latvia<br />
Hungary<br />
Belgium (Flemish)<br />
Netherlands<br />
Canada (Ontario)<br />
Rep. of Korea<br />
Japan<br />
Hong Kong, China<br />
Singapore<br />
Proportion of stu<strong>de</strong>nts scoring<br />
below the low international<br />
benchmark in sciences in 2003<br />
9<br />
6<br />
7<br />
4<br />
6<br />
8<br />
5<br />
5<br />
5<br />
7<br />
5<br />
3<br />
6<br />
2<br />
3<br />
2<br />
2<br />
2<br />
5<br />
23<br />
29<br />
22<br />
19<br />
1995 to 2003 difference<br />
-1<br />
-5<br />
-6<br />
-3<br />
-6<br />
-16<br />
-6<br />
-1<br />
-12<br />
-2<br />
0<br />
-2<br />
-9<br />
-3<br />
-1<br />
-8<br />
4 Iran, Isl. Rep.<br />
1<br />
Cyprus<br />
Romania<br />
3<br />
Norway<br />
12 Bulgaria<br />
New Zealand<br />
United States<br />
Slovenia<br />
1<br />
Slovakia<br />
United Kingdom<br />
(Scotland)<br />
Lithuania<br />
Australia<br />
2<br />
Swe<strong>de</strong>n<br />
Russian Fed.<br />
Latvia<br />
Hungary<br />
Belgium (Flemish)<br />
Netherlands<br />
Canada (Ontario)<br />
Rep. of Korea<br />
Japan<br />
Hong Kong, China<br />
4 Singapore<br />
Canada (Quebec)<br />
1<br />
0<br />
Canada (Quebec)<br />
2<br />
-6<br />
Canada (Quebec)<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50<br />
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50<br />
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15<br />
Non-significant<br />
Significant<br />
Non-significant<br />
Significant<br />
Source: UNESCO <strong>Institut</strong>e <strong>for</strong> Statistics calculations based on Mullis et al. (2004) and Martin et al. (2004).<br />
Figure 2.23: Evolution of PISA results between 2000 and 2003: reading<br />
Proportion of 15-year-old stu<strong>de</strong>nts<br />
below or at level 1<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
2000 2003<br />
Rep. Korea<br />
Finland<br />
Canada<br />
Hong Kong, China<br />
Japan<br />
Ireland<br />
Australia<br />
Swe<strong>de</strong>n<br />
Iceland<br />
Spain<br />
France<br />
Austria<br />
New Zealand<br />
Italy<br />
Denmark<br />
Czech Rep.<br />
Norway<br />
United States<br />
Hungary<br />
Switzerland<br />
Liechtenstein<br />
Belgium<br />
Greece<br />
Poland<br />
Russian Fed.<br />
Portugal<br />
Germany<br />
Thailand<br />
Latvia<br />
Luxembourg<br />
Mexico<br />
Brazil<br />
Indonesia<br />
Note: Countries are sorted in increasing ordrer of the proportion scoring at or below level 1.<br />
Sources: OECD/UNESCO <strong>Institut</strong>e <strong>for</strong> Statistics (2003), p. 274; OECD (2004), p. 443.<br />
low benchmark in mathematics was not significantly<br />
changed in thirteen countries, increased in seven<br />
and <strong>de</strong>creased in four (Figure 2.22). The picture<br />
<strong>for</strong> science is slightly better, as the proportion<br />
below the low benchmark <strong>de</strong>creased significantly<br />
in eleven countries, although not in those where<br />
this proportion was highest in 2000. Similarly, a<br />
comparison of the results of PISA <strong>for</strong> 2000 and<br />
2003 (Figure 2.23) shows typically mo<strong>de</strong>rate<br />
variations, although the proportion did <strong>de</strong>crease<br />
significantly in a few countries where it was<br />
relatively high in 2000 (e.g. Latvia, Indonesia),<br />
suggesting some improvement in the quality of<br />
the school system during this period.<br />
An important qualification is that Figures 2.22<br />
and 2.23 inclu<strong>de</strong> few <strong>de</strong>veloping countries. There<br />
is conclusive evi<strong>de</strong>nce that achievement levels<br />
have <strong>de</strong>creased in recent years in several sub-<br />
Saharan African countries. As the 2005 Report
Change language