Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 1

INTRODUCTION

Education is recognized as a human right since the adoption of Universal

Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 besides health and shelter (Madani, 2018).
Education for All Goals was established where more than 150 governments have adopted
world declaration on Education for All policy to support the universal right for education.
The ultimate goal of many countries is to guarantee the optimum educational access rates
for improving the quality.
Education is an essential tool for social and economic growth of a country. The
basic educational skills; like reading and writing increases a person’s income up to 10%
acting as the perfect weapon that lifts individuals to freedom, which helps to eradicate
international poverty and hunger (OECD, 2013).
Unfortunately, education in the Philippines is in crisis, and since Department of
Education (DepEd) refuses to participate in international assessments, the degree and
scope of the crisis is unknown. The last international assessments in the Philippines were
completed in 1999 and 2003. In those years, math and science skills of Filipino students
were compared with the students from many other countries. The results showed that the
performance of Filipinos students was appalling. These studies revealed how poor the
quality of public education in the Philippines really is (Claro et.al, 2016).
Philippine government are continuously improving their citizens’ education.
According to Doll (2012), huge amounts of resources are invested in education annually
for the sake of improving the learning process. However, the standard and quality of
education does not meet its potential in the Philippines, but also in many developing
countries. The quality of education in these countries are assessed by different groups
organizations like PISA.
PISA or the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) assesses the “extent
to which 15-year-old students, near the end of their compulsory education, have acquired
key knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in modern societies, with
emphasis on how well students can extrapolate from what they have learnt and can apply
that knowledge in unfamiliar settings, both in and outside of school” (OECD, 2018).
According to PISA, it has become more important than ever before to compare
students not only to local or national standards, but also to the performance of the world’s
top-performing school systems. There has been growing interest in comparing student
performance to international benchmarks, both as a gauge of how prepared students are
to participate in a globalized society and as a means of setting targets above and beyond
basic proficiency levels or local expectations(Jensen,2010).
Six Southeast Asian countries (including, for the first time, the Philippines) have
participated in the OECD’s PISA 2018.These countries are Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand,
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 2

Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore. The OECD developed the PISA program to test
15-year-old students’ proficiency in Reading, Mathematics and Science in 79 countries
around the globe.
Mathematical performance, for PISA, measures the mathematical literacy of a 15
year-old to formulate, employ and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts to
describe, predict and explain phenomena, recognizing the role that mathematics plays in
the world. A mathematically literate student recognizes the role that mathematics plays in
the world in order to make well-founded judgments and decisions needed by constructive,
engaged and reflective citizens.
Reading performance, for PISA, measures the capacity to understand, use and
reflect on written texts in order to achieve goals, develop knowledge and potential, and
participate in society.
Scientific performance, for PISA, measures the scientific literacy of a 15 year-old
in the use of scientific knowledge to identify questions, acquire new knowledge, explain
scientific phenomena, and draw evidence-based conclusions about science-related
issues.
PISA is a useful tool not only for measuring how students perform now, but how
much countries have progressed over time in encouraging – and realizing – excellence
and equity in education (Fack et. al, 2015). If nothing else, PISA shows that, with
concerted effort and the right policies in place, it is possible to improve student
performance – even among the lowest and highest performers in reading, mathematics
and science (OECD, 2013).
However, the holistic approach taken by PISA also accounts for other aspects of
a child’s schooling. Acknowledging the digital environment’s impact in today’s society,
PISA has included reading in a digital environment in its assessment (Yeager, 2012).
Other social factors seen as essential to and which affect learning, such as students’
attitudes and well-being, immigration, gender gap, socio-economic profile, academic
resilience and others, were also included in the data collection. Unlike other assessments,
the report collects figure not just from students, but also from teachers, schools and
systems (Dinkelman et. al, 2014).
Considering the data collected through PISA, what’s next is for governments to
review and act on it. Education encompasses not just the social aspect of a society, but
as well as the economic and political climate (Hoxby,2012). With the shifting trends in
traditional commerce to e-commerce, particularly in Southeast Asia, policies and
programs should cater to the needs and potential of its people.
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 3

Statement of the Problem

This term paper sought to determine the standing of the Philippines in terms of its
quality of education. Specifically, the researcher aimed to answer the following question:
1. What is the over-all standing/position of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast
Asian PISA?

Objectives
This term paper aims to:
1. To calculate the over-all mean score of the Philippines among the Southeast
Asian countries that took the 2018 PISA
2. To determine the standing/position of Philippines in of each the PISA’s
examination (Reading, Math and Science) among the Southeast Asian countries
that took the 2018 PISA thru:
 Percentile Rank
3. To determine the over-all standing/position of Philippines’ score among the
Southeast Asian countries that took the 2018 PISA thru:
 Percentile Rank
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 4

1.1 Gathering
Data

1.2 Tabulating
Results

1.3 Computations
of Percentile Rank

1.4 Data Analysis

Figure 1. Research Flowchart

 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 5

Methodology
Gathering of Data
The data were gathered from the site of PISA.
Tabulating Results
The average score of each country were computed as shown in the tables
below:

Table 1. The mean scores of all Southeast Asian Countries in Reading

Country Average in Reading
Singapore 549
Malaysia 415
Brunei 408
Thailand 393
Indonesia 371
Philippines 340

Table 2. The mean scores of all Southeast Asian Countries in Math

Country Average in Math
Singapore 569
Malaysia 440
Brunei 430
Thailand 419
Indonesia 379
Philippines 353
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 6

Table 3. The mean scores of all Southeast Asian Countries in Science

Country Average in Science

Singapore 551
Malaysia 438
Brunei 431
Thailand 426
Indonesia 396
Philippines 357

Table 4. The over-all mean scores of all Southeast Asian Countries in the three
subjects (Reading, Mathematics and Science).

Country Over-All Computed Average

Singapore 556.33
Malaysia 431
Brunei 423
Thailand 412.67
Indonesia 382
Philippines 350

Table 5. Frequency Distribution Table of the average over-all scores of Southeast

Asian Countries in Reading
Score Frequency cf LB
500-549 1 6 499.5
450-499 0 5 449.5
400-449 2 5 399.5
350-399 2 3 349.5
300-349 1 1 299.5
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 7

Table 6. Frequency Distribution Table of the average over-all scores of Southeast

Asian Countries in Math
Score Frequency cf LB
550-599 1 6 549.5
500-549 0 5 499.5
450-499 0 5 449.5
400-449 3 5 399.5
350-399 2 2 349.5

Table 7. Frequency Distribution Table of the average over-all scores of Southeast

Asian Countries in Science
Score Frequency cf LB
550-599 1 6 549.5
500-549 0 5 499.5
450-499 0 5 449.5
400-449 3 5 399.5
350-399 2 2 349.5

Table 8. Frequency Distribution Table of the average over-all scores of Southeast

Asian Countries

Score Frequency cf LB
550-599 1 6 549.5
500-549 0 5 499.5
450-499 0 5 449.5
400-449 3 5 399.5
350-399 2 2 349.5
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 8

Calculation of the Measures of Position

The different measures of positions were computed using the standard
formula:
 Percentile Rank
𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝑷 − 𝑳𝑩)𝒇𝒑
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝒄𝒇𝒑]
𝑵 𝒊

Percentile Rank in Reading Percentile Rank in Math

𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝑷 − 𝑳𝑩)𝒇𝒑 𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝑷 − 𝑳𝑩)𝒇𝒑
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝒄𝒇𝒑] 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝒄𝒇𝒑]
𝑵 𝒊 𝑵 𝒊
𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝟑𝟒𝟎 − 𝟐𝟗𝟗. 𝟓)𝟏 𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝟑𝟓𝟑 − 𝟑𝟒𝟗. 𝟓)𝟐
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝟎] 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝟎]
𝟔 𝟓𝟎 𝟔 𝟓𝟎
(𝟑𝟒𝟎 − 𝟐𝟗𝟗. 𝟓)𝟏 (𝟑𝟓𝟑 − 𝟑𝟒𝟗. 𝟓)𝟐
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ] 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ]
𝟓𝟎 𝟓𝟎
𝟒𝟎. 𝟓 𝟕
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ] 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ]
𝟓𝟎 𝟓𝟎
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙[𝟎. 𝟖𝟏] 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙[𝟎. 𝟏𝟒]
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟓𝟎 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟐. 𝟑𝟑
The Philippines’ score in Reading The Philippines’ score in Mathematical
performance, 340 points, belongs to the Performance, 353 points, belongs to the
13.5% of the data. 2.33% of the data.
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 9

Percentile Rank in Science Percentile Rank of Over-all Mean

Score
𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝑷 − 𝑳𝑩)𝒇𝒑
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝒄𝒇𝒑] 𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝑷 − 𝑳𝑩)𝒇𝒑
𝑵 𝒊 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝒄𝒇𝒑]
𝑵 𝒊
𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝟑𝟓𝟕 − 𝟑𝟒𝟗. 𝟓)𝟐
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝟎] 𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝟑𝟓𝟎 − 𝟑𝟒𝟗. 𝟓)𝟐
𝟔 𝟓𝟎 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝒙[ + 𝟎]
𝟔 𝟓𝟎
(𝟑𝟓𝟕 − 𝟑𝟒𝟗. 𝟓)𝟐
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ] (𝟑𝟓𝟎 − 𝟑𝟒𝟗. 𝟓)𝟐
𝟓𝟎 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ]
𝟓𝟎
(𝟕. 𝟓)𝟐
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ] (𝟎. 𝟓)𝟐
𝟓𝟎 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ]
𝟓𝟎
𝟏𝟓
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ] 𝟏
𝟓𝟎 𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙 [ ]
𝟓𝟎
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙[𝟎. 𝟑]
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟕𝒙[𝟎. 𝟎𝟐]
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟓. 𝟎𝟎
𝑷𝑷𝑹 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟑
The Philippines’ score in Scientific
performance, 357 points, belongs to the 5% The Philippines’ over-all mean score in
of the data. PISA 2018, 350 points, belongs to the
0.33% of the data.

Conclusion
In the light of the preceding results and discussion the following are concluded:
1. The over-all mean score of the Philippines is 350 points.
2. The Philippines’ score per test, among the Southeast Asian countries that took
the 2018 PISA, belongs to: (1)13.5% in Reading; (2) 2.33% in Math and; (3) 5% in
Science.
3. Among the Southeast Asian countries that took the 2018 PISA, the Philippines’
over-all mean score belongs to 0.33% of the data.
 Standing of the Philippines in the 2018 Southeast Asia PISA 10

Bibliography

 Madani, R.A., (2018). Expanding College Opportunities for High-Achieving, Low-

Income Students, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/12-014paper_6.pdf
(Accessed on 20 May 2019.)

 OECD (2018), PISA Results in focus 2015, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015- results-in-focus.pdf

 OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can do: Student
Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I), PISA, OECD
Publishing, Paris.

 Claro, S., D. Paunesku and C. Dweck (2016), “Growth mindset tempers the
effects of poverty on academic achievement”, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113/31, pp. 8664-
8668.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113

 Doll, B. (2012), “Enhancing resilience in classrooms”, in Handbook of Resilience

in Children, Springer US, Boston, MA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-
4_23

 Yeager, D. and C. Dweck (2012), “Mindsets that promote resilience: When

students believe that personal characteristics can be developed”, Educational
Psychologist, Vol. 47/4, pp. 302-http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805

 Dinkelman, T. and C. Martínez A. (2014), “Investing in schooling in Chile: The role

of information about financial aid for higher education”, Review of Economics and
Statistics,Vol. 96/2, pp. 244-257.http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00384

 Fack, G. and J. Grenet (2015), “Improving college access and success for low-
income students: Evidence from a large need-based grant program”, American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 7/2, pp. 1-34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/app.20130423

 Hoxby, C. and C. Avery (2012), The Missing “One-Offs”: The Hidden Supply of
High-Achieving, Low-Income Students, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, MA. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w18586

 Jensen, R. (2010), “The (perceived) returns to education and the demand for
schooling*”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 125/2, pp. 515-548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.515