37
Lastly, Figure 2.18 depicts the evolution of PISA country average scores achieved by 15-year-
olds inMathematics, Reading and Science since 2000. OIC representation in PISA increased from
2 countries in 2000 to 3 in 2003, 6 in 2006 to 8 in 2009 round. In addition to a steady increase
in participation rate, Indonesia is the only OIC country that has participated in all rounds of PISA.
However, by 2015, the country average scores was below 400 PISA points by 2015 though in
the cases of mathematics and reading, there has been some progress since 2000. A similar trend
is noticeable in the case of Jordan during the 2006 and 2015 rounds. In 2006, it enjoyed a
30point gap in science vis-à-vis Indonesia which almost closed by 2015. One member state that
has enjoyed a steady increase in student performance for the first four rounds is Turkey.
Between 2003 and 2012, PISA scores rose steadily in all three subjects. However, performance
in 2015 suffered a significant decline, returning to the 2006 level. In case of Tunisia,
performance improved between 2003 and 2009 but declined significantly in science by 2015.
Only in case of Kazakhstan is the rising trend is sustained even in 2015 results -- compared to
2012, the Kazakhstani students achieved more in math (28 points), reading (34 points) and
science (31 points).2 This is attributed to the National Action Plan on development of functional
literacy of school children launched in 2012 to update the content of secondary education.3 The
contrasting stories of Turkey and Jordan highlight the challenge for other OIC countries. Some
member countries such as Turkey has enjoyed a period of sustained increase in student learning
but suffered a sharp decline by 2015. The most dramatic improvement occurred in case of
Malaysia – in 2015, it ranked second among all participating OIC countries in math and science,
though still below most OECD countries.
2.1.4. Equity in Educational Outcomes and Opportunities
Since the majority of economically poor member countries (e.g. 27 African member states) do
not participate in TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA, it is not possible to explore the association between
difference indicators of poverty (poverty gap, different poverty lines) and learning outcomes
vis-à-vis other non-OIC countries. Nonetheless, one can explore the wealth gap in performance
among children in participating countries. Figure 2.19 presents data on percentage of children
achieving specific level of competency in TIMSS math and science by family wealth. In order to
describe the evolution of wealth-learning connection (i.e. how the level of student achievement
across wealth groups changes over time), data is presented for 1999 and 2011. The averages for
participating OIC countries in 1999 show that the majority of children (i.e. over 50% attained
basic competencies in math and science regardless of their wealth groups. There is a wealth gap
with children from highest wealth quintiles performing better but it widens by 2011 in basic
competencies (level 1), in both math and science. In other words, the wealth gradient became
much steeper by 2011. In level 2 competency, students severally lag behind in math in 1999 as
well as 2011 rounds; this is true for children of low and high wealth groups. The majority in the
participating OIC sample countries by 2011 did not demonstrate level-2 competencies
regardless of the wealth group. The percentage of students achieving level 3 competency is even
lower. There was a large wealth gap in 1999 data. While this has narrowed by 2011, it is because
of a fall in top performing student population. Only 4 percent of children from the top wealth
group had attained level 3 competencies in science and math.
3