Sumber: http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Education_Index Download 29 Mei 2012

Education Index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

World map indicating Education Index based on the 2009 UN HDR 0.950 and over 0.7000.749 0.4500.499 0.9000.949 0.6500.699 0.4000.449 0.8500.899 0.6000.649 0.3500.399 0.8000.849 0.5500.599 under 0.350 0.7500.799 0.5000.549 not available This article contains information based on the pre-2010 Human Development Reports. The HDI and its education component have changed in 2010. The United Nations publishes a Human Development Index every year, which consists of the Education index, GDP Index and Life Expectancy Index. These three components measure the educational attainment, GDP per capita and life expectancy respectively. The Education Index is measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting). The adult literacy rate gives an indication of the ability to read and write, while the GER gives an indication of the level of education from nursery (UK & others)/kindergarten (USA & others) to post-graduate education. Education is a major component of well-being and is used in the measure of economic development and quality of life, which is a key factor determining whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country.

Contents

1 Ranking 2 See also

3 References 4 External links

Ranking
Change in value from the last report is given as follows:

= increase. = steady. = decrease.

The latest index was released in the Human Development Report in October 2009.[1][dead link] This statistical update covers the period up to 2007: 1 is the highest possible theoretical score, indicating perfect education attainment. All countries considered to be developed countries possess a minimum score of 0.8 or above, although the great majority have a score of 0.9 or above. For ranking based on the Human Development Index, see List of countries by Human Development Index. Rank
Change 2007 compared data to 2006 data

Education index Country

Rank Country

Education index
Change 2007 compared data to 2006 data

Change Change 2007 compared 2007 compared data to 2006 data to 2006 data data

1 1 1 1 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
(2) (20) (8) (1)

Australia Finland Denmark New Zealand Cuba Canada Norway Republic of Korea Ireland Netherlands Greece Iceland France

0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.991 0.989 0.988 0.985 0.985 0.981 0.980 0.978 0.017

92 93 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 0.001 102 103 104 0.004 105 0.035

(13) (5) (9) (3) (1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (1) (3)

(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Jordan Fiji Ecuador Trinidad and Tobago Lebanon Malaysia China Suriname Dominica

0.870 0.868 0.866 0.861 0.857 0.851 0.851 0.850 0.848 0.843

0.010 0.011

0.012 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.002 0.010

(2) (4)

Gabon South 0.843 Africa Indonesia 0.840 Mauritius 0.839 Dominican 0.839 Republic United 0.838 Arab Emirates

Luxembourg 0.975 0.975 Spain Barbados 0.975

(1)

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Sweden Belgium Slovenia United States Lithuania Italy Kazakhstan Estonia Austria Latvia Belarus Hungary Ukraine United Kingdom Uruguay Germany Poland Japan

0.974 0.974 0.969 0.968 0.968 0.965 0.965 0.964 0.962 0.961 0.961 0.960 0.960 0.957 0.955 0.954 0.952 0.949
N/A

106 107 108 109 110 0.001 111 112 0.003 113 114 0.004 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 0.002 0.035 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139

(2) (4)

(4)

(3)

(2) (1) (1) (1) (2)

(2) (4) (1) (1) (4) (1) (1) (2) (5) (5)

(2) (1) (1) (1) (1) N/A (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (1) (3) (23) (3) (2) (4) (3) (3)

Liechtenstein 0.949 0.947 Israel Argentina 0.946 Antigua 0.945 and Barbuda Guyana 0.939 Czech 0.938 Republic Switzerland Russia Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Venezuela Tonga Chile Kyrgyzstan Croatia Romania 0.936 0.933 0.930 0.929 0.928 0.921 0.920 0.919 0.918 0.916 0.915

(5) (1) (1) (7) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (7) (3) (2) (4) (3)

Jamaica Sri Lanka Saudi Arabia Turkey Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Sao Tome and Principe Namibia Vietnam Honduras El Salvador Iran Oman Botswana Equatorial Guinea Myanmar Cape Verde Syria Tunisia Belize Nicaragua Lesotho Algeria Congo Swaziland Vanuatu Guatemala Cambodia Uganda Egypt Kenya Malawi Laos Zambia Solomon

0.834 0.834 0.828 0.828 0.817

0.004 0.013 0.004

0.813 0.811 0.810 0.806 0.798 0.793 0.790 0.788 0.787 0.787 0.786 0.773 0.772 0.762 0.760 0.753 0.748 0.736 0.731 0.729 0.723 0.704 0.698 0.697 0.690 0.685 0.683 0.682 0.676

0.003 0.003 0.006

0.011 0.003 0.005

0.001 0.006 0.004 0.014 0.005 0.033 0.006 0.014 0.004 0.006 0.034 0.006 0.001 0.018

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

(40) (4) (4) (1) (3) (4) (4)

Singapore Mongolia Cyprus Armenia

0.913 0.913 0.910 0.909

0.070 140 0.001 141 142 0.001 143 144 0.001 145 0.004 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 0.006 154 155 156 0.001 157 0.002 158 0.001 159 0.002 160 0.007 161 0.007 162 163 0.002 0.001 164 165 166 0.001 0.005 167 168 0.001 169 170
(2) (18) (2) (6) (3) (3) (2) (3)

Islands Madagascar Tanzania Angola Nigeria Comoros India Cameroon Ghana Democratic Republic of the Congo Rwanda Haiti Nepal Morocco Yemen Liberia Burundi Djibouti GuineaBissau Mauritania Sudan Eritrea Togo Bhutan Bangladesh Papua New Guinea Pakistan Mozambique Cte d'Ivoire Benin Gambia Central African Republic 0.676 0.673 0.667 0.657 0.655 0.643 0.627 0.627 0.608 0.607 0.588 0.579 0.574 0.579 0.562 0.559 0.554 0.545 0.552 0.539 0.539 0.534 0.533 0.530 0.521 0.492 0.478 0.450 0.445 0.439 0.419 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.132 0.009 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.017 0.049

(4) (3) (1) (9) (4) (4)

Turkmenistan 0.906 Samoa 0.905 Moldova 0.899 Libya 0.898 Saint Kitts 0.896 and Nevis Tajikistan 0.896 Bahrain 0.893 0.892 Bolivia Brunei 0.891 0.891 0.891 0.891 0.891 0.889 0.888 0.888 0.888 0.888 0.888 0.887 0.886 0.886 0.886 0.886 0.885 0.884 0.883 0.881 0.881 0.880 0.879

(2)

0.003 0.007

(4) (3) (3) (3) (9) (3) (2) (5)

0.010 0.002 0.012 0.045 0.005 0.004 0.011 0.003 0.025 0.009 0.020 0.006 0.002

Montenegro (4) Serbia (2) Brazil (4) Peru Saint (12) Lucia N/A Qatar (5) Panama (2) Thailand
(6) (10)

N/A

Philippines

(1) (2) (5) (9) (2) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Uzbekistan (5) Malta (6) Mexico (9) Seychelles (10) Albania Palestinian (3) Authority (5) Maldives (7) Grenada (5) Costa Rica (3) Colombia (3) Azerbaijan Republic (2) of Macedonia Hong (5) Kong

87 88 89 90 91

(3) N/A (2) (1) (2)

Bahamas Andorra Bosnia and Herzegovina Kuwait Paraguay

0.878 0.878 0.874 0.872 0.871

N/A

171 172 173 174

(1)

(2) (1) N/A (1) (3) (1) (3)

Senegal Ethiopia Sierra Leone Guinea Afghanistan Chad Mali Burkina Faso Niger

0.417 0.403 0.403 0.361 0.354 0.334 0.331 0.301 0.282

0.013 0.006

0.005 175 0.006 176 177 178 179

N/A

0.031 0.015 0.004

See also

School leaving age

References
1. ^ http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/93.html

Sumber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Innovation_Index_%28Boston_Consulting_Group%29 Download 29 Mei 2012

Global Innovation Index (Boston Consulting Group)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Global Innovation Index by The Boston Consulting Group is a global index measuring the level of innovation of a country, produced jointly by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and The Manufacturing Institute (MI), the NAM's nonpartisan research affiliate. NAM describes it as the "largest and most comprehensive global index of its kind".[1] The International Innovation Index is part of a large research study that looked at both the business outcomes of innovation and government's ability to encourage and support innovation through public policy. The study comprised a survey of more than 1,000 senior executives from NAM member companies across all industries; in-depth interviews with 30 of the executives; and a comparison of the "innovation friendliness" of 110 countries and all 50 U.S. states. The findings are published in the report, "The Innovation Imperative in Manufacturing: How the United States Can Restore Its Edge."[2] The report discusses not only country performance but also what companies are doing and should be doing to spur innovation. It looks at new policy indicators for innovation, including tax incentives and policies for immigration, education and intellectual property.

Contents

1 Positively ranked countries 2 Negatively ranked countries 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

Positively ranked countries

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Country Singapore Switzerland South Korea Iceland Finland Overall Innovation Inputs Innovation Performance 2.45 2.89 2.01 2.16 2.15 2.11 2.02 1.52 1.75 2.21 2.01 2.75 2.55 2.01 2.02

Rank 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 -44 --

Country Hong Kong Ireland Japan United States Sweden Netherlands Denmark Luxembourg Israel Canada United Kingdom Austria Norway France Spain China Malaysia Australia Estonia Belgium Germany New Zealand Cyprus Portugal Qatar Hungary Malta Slovenia Czech Republic South Africa Bahrain Chile Italy Slovakia Tunisia Greece Latvia Lithuania India Thailand

Overall Innovation Inputs Innovation Performance 1.82 1.77 1.85 1.81 1.78 1.84 1.80 1.28 2.25 1.66 1.16 2.16 1.56 1.25 1.88 1.54 1.40 1.55 1.52 1.55 1.49 1.52 1.02 2.03 1.44 1.34 1.43 1.36 1.39 1.32 1.35 1.33 1.37 1.16 1.16 1.12 1.15 1.16 1.11 1.06 1.17 0.96 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.03 0.06 1.96 0.96 0.89 1.01 0.93 0.89 1.05 0.91 1.50 0.25 0.86 0.85 0.79 0.81 0.79 0.84 0.77 0.79 0.69 0.63 0.64 0.56 0.60 0.92 0.22 0.52 1.02 0.02 0.51 0.80 0.18 0.39 0.24 0.54 0.37 0.47 0.24 0.34 0.88 -0.10 0.33 0.15 0.47 0.27 0.78 -0.26 0.24 0.36 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.24 0.19 0.72 -0.31 0.16 0.64 -0.32 0.12 0.02 0.22 0.11 0.36 -0.12 0.11 0.64 -0.40 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.09 -0.24 0.36

Rank 46 47 48 49

Country Overall Innovation Inputs Innovation Performance Kuwait 0.08 0.64 -0.36 Croatia 0.06 0.32 -0.21 Trinidad and Tobago 0.05 -0.24 0.36 Bulgaria 0.04 0.48 -0.36

Negatively ranked countries

Rank 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Country Russia Saudi Arabia Poland Philippines Oman Jordan Mexico Turkey Lesotho Kazakhstan Romania Costa Rica Panama Ukraine Egypt Botswana Albania Azerbaijan Sri Lanka Morocco Indonesia Brazil Vietnam Colombia Armenia Macedonia Georgia Ethiopia Jamaica El Salvador Kyrgyzstan Honduras Overall Innovation Inputs Innovation Performance -0.09 -0.02 -0.16 -0.12 0.57 -0.79 -0.13 0.22 -0.45 -0.15 -0.64 0.36 -0.15 0.27 -0.56 -0.15 -0.04 -0.26 -0.16 0.11 -0.42 -0.21 0.15 -0.55 -0.22 -1.01 0.59 -0.23 -0.51 0.07 -0.29 0.22 -0.77 -0.39 -0.57 -0.18 -0.43 -0.48 -0.34 -0.45 -0.13 -0.73 -0.47 -0.46 -0.43 -0.47 -0.50 -0.40 -0.49 -0.58 -0.34 -0.54 -0.48 -0.54 -0.56 -0.61 -0.46 -0.57 -0.55 -0.54 -0.57 -0.63 -0.46 -0.59 -0.62 -0.51 -0.65 -1.09 -0.16 -0.66 -0.95 -0.30 -0.66 -0.75 -0.52 -0.68 -0.13 -1.17 -0.72 -0.48 -0.88 -0.75 -1.16 -0.27 -0.75 -0.72 -0.72 -0.77 -0.59 -0.88 -0.78 -0.54 -0.95 -0.79 -0.64 -0.85

Rank 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Country Overall Innovation Inputs Innovation Performance Moldova -0.80 -0.24 -1.28 -0.82 -1.04 -0.51 Pakistan -0.83 -0.87 -0.70 Algeria Paraguay -0.89 -0.63 -1.07 Mongolia -0.90 -0.71 -1.01 Nigeria -0.95 -0.91 -0.90 Uruguay -0.95 -0.76 -1.06 -0.96 -1.05 -0.78 Uganda -0.59 Burkina Faso -0.97 -1.25 Argentina -0.97 -0.96 -0.90 Tajikistan -0.99 -1.04 -0.86 Guatemala -0.99 -0.94 -0.96 -1.01 -0.91 -1.02 Kenya -1.02 -1.08 -0.87 Bolivia Syria -1.03 -0.99 -0.98 Nepal Peru Senegal Namibia Ecuador Madagascar Nicaragua Zambia Benin Cameroon Venezuela Burundi Zimbabwe -1.05 -1.06 -1.06 -1.07 -1.11 -1.16 -1.18 -1.28 -1.28 -1.32 -1.37 -1.54 -1.63 -1.23 -1.18 -1.11 -1.12 -1.21 -1.15 -1.22 -1.40 -1.55 -1.77 -1.50 -1.82 -1.63 -0.77 -0.85 -0.91 -0.92 -0.91 -1.06 -1.02 -1.03 -0.89 -0.74 -1.10 -1.22 -1.48

See also

Global Innovation Index (INSEAD) Creative destruction Creative problem solving Theories of technology Diffusion (anthropology) Ecoinnovation Emerging technologies List of emerging technologies Hype cycle Individual capital Induced innovation

Information revolution Ingenuity Invention Innovation Innovation economics Innovation saturation Knowledge economy Open innovation Patent Public domain Research Timeline of historic inventions Toolkits for User Innovation User innovation Value network

References
1. ^ America Ranks #8 In New Global Innovation Index 2. ^ U.S. Ranks #8 In Global Innovation Index

External links

The Boston Consulting Group National Association of Manufacturers

Sumber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate Download 29 Mei 2012

List of countries by literacy rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

World map indicating literacy by country (2011 Human Development Report) Grey = no data List of countries by literacy rate, as included in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Report 2011.[3][4] The figures from the report represent a mixture of data collected by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, national self-reported data, and the UNDP's global projection models. Where data was unavailable older figures were used. For highly developed/high income countries where literacy statistics were not collected, a rate of 99% was assumed.[1]

Contents

1 List 2 See also 3 Notes 4 References

List
# Rank 1 2 3 1 2 3 Georgia Cuba Estonia Country Literacy rate
[b]

100 99.9 99.8

# Rank 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Country Latvia Barbados Slovenia Belarus Lithuania Ukraine Armenia Kazakhstan Tajikistan Azerbaijan Turkmenistan Russia Hungary Kyrgyzstan Poland Tonga Albania Antigua and Barbuda Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina Denmark Finland France Germany Guyana Iceland Ireland Japan South Korea Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Slovakia Sweden

Literacy rate
[b]

99.8 99.7 [j] 99.7 [l] 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.6 99.6 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.4 [j] 99.3 99.3 [j] 99.2 99.1 99.0 [q] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [j] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] 99.0 [d]

# Rank 43 10 44 10 45 10 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 29 29 30 31 Switzerland United Kingdom United States and

States

Country

Literacy rate
[b]

99.0 [d] 99.0 [d] Puerto Rico See also: Literacy in the United 99.0 [d] 98.9 98.8 [l] 98.8 98.8 [l] 98.8 98.8 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.7 97.5 97.2 97.1 [k] 97.1 97.0 96.9 [j] 96.5 96.1 96.0 [q] 95.9 [k] 95.8 [j] 95.7 95.2 94.9 [l] 94.8 [q] 94.7 94.7 94.6 [j] 94.6 [p] 94.6 [l] 94.5 94.4 [j]

Italy Samoa Croatia Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Bulgaria Spain Cyprus Libya Serbia Saint Kitts and Nevis Romania Argentina Mongolia Greece Israel Macedonia Maldives Uzbekistan Chile Costa Rica Grenada China Bahamas Philippines Venezuela Portugal Saint Lucia Qatar Singapore Hong Kong Palestinian Authority Paraguay Kuwait Fiji

# Rank 81 32 82 33 83 33 84 35 85 36 86 36 87 37 88 38 89 39 90 40 91 41 92 42 93 42 94 44 95 44 96 45 97 46 98 47 99 47 100 48 101 49 102 50 103 50 104 50 105 51 106 52 107 53 108 54 109 55 110 56 111 57 112 58 113 58 114 59 115 60 116 61 117 62 118 63 119 64

Country Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Panama Brunei Mexico Suriname Colombia Vietnam Malaysia Malta Indonesia Myanmar Zimbabwe Seychelles Bahrain Jordan Ecuador Iran Bolivia Equatorial Guinea Lebanon United Arab Emirates Brazil Lesotho Peru Dominican Republic Tunisia Sao Tome and Principe Namibia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Dominica South Africa Syria Gabon Mauritius Swaziland Jamaica Saudi Arabia

Literacy rate
[b]

94.2 [w] 94.1 94.1[2] 93.6 93.4 93.4 93.3 93.2 92.8 92.5 92.4 92.0 92.0 91.9 [l] 91.8 91.4 91.1 91.0 91.0[3] 90.7 90.4 90.0[4] 90.0 [l] 90.0 89.7 89.6 89.1 88.9 88.8 88.5 88.1 [q] 88.0 [q] 88.0 87.9 87.7 87.0 86.9 86.4 86.1

# Rank 120 65 121 66 122 66 123 67 124 67 125 68 126 69 127 70 128 71 129 72 130 74 131 75 132 76 133 77 134 78 135 79 136 80 137 78 138 82 139 83 140 84 141 85 142 86 143 87 144 88 145 88 146 89 147 90 148 91 149 92 150 93 151 94 152 95 153 96 154 96 155 96 156 97 157 98 158 99 Cape Verde Kenya Ecuador North Korea El Salvador Honduras Oman Republic of the Congo Vanuatu Iraq Nicaragua Botswana Solomon Islands Cambodia Algeria Belize Guatemala India Comoros Malawi Uganda Tanzania Ghana Zambia Madagascar Rwanda Djibouti Sudan Angola Laos Nepal Cameroon

Country

Literacy rate
[b]

84.8 [l] 84.2 84.2 84.1 84.1 83.6 89.4 81.1 [l] 80.2 78.1 78.0 77.7 76.6 [k] 76.3 75.4 75.1 [q] 74.5 75.6[5] 74.2 73.7 73.3 72.9 72.0* [l] 70.9 70.7 70.7 70.3 [j] 70.2 [aa] 70.0 68.7 68.2 67.9 66.8 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.4 62.4 [l] 62.1 [j]

Democratic Republic of the Congo Eritrea Nigeria Burundi Egypt Yemen Haiti

# Rank 159 100 160 101 161 102 162 103 163 104 164 105 165 106 166 107 167 108 168 109 169 110 170 111 171 112 172 113 173 114 174 115 175 116 176 117 177 118 178 119 179 120 180 120 181 121 182 122 183 123 Morocco

Country

Literacy rate
[b]

Papua New Guinea Pakistan Mauritania Bangladesh Cte d'Ivoire Central African Republic Mozambique Togo Bhutan Guinea-Bissau Timor-Leste Senegal Gambia Benin Sierra Leone Guinea Afghanistan Somalia Chad Burkina Faso Niger Ethiopia South Sudan Mali

61.5 [6] [7] 60.1 58.2 57.5 55.9 55.3 55.2 55.1 53.2 52.8 [v] 52.2 50.1 [ab] 49.7 46.5 [j] 41.7 40.9 39.5 37.8 35.9 [8] 33.6 28.7 28.7 28.0 27.0 26.2

See also

International Literacy Day Literacy Compulsory education

Notes

^ United Nations Development Program [5] ^ Tables can be found UNDP.org ^b 0 Data refer to national literacy estimates from censuses or surveys conducted between 1995 and 2005, unless otherwise specified. Due to differences in methodology and timeliness of underlying data, comparisons across countries and over time should be made with caution. For more details, see Unesco.org. ^d 1 For purposes of calculating the HDI, a value of 99.0% was applied.

^v 2 UNICEF 2004. ^l 3 UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimates based on its Global Age-specific Literacy Projections model, April 2007. ^j 4 In the absence of recent data, estimates from UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2003, based on outdated census or survey information, were used and should be interpreted with caution: Bahamas 95.8, Barbados 90.7, Comoros 56.8, Djibouti 70.3, Eritrea 67.5, Fiji 94.4, Gambia 42.5, Guinea-Bissau 11.00, Guyana 99.0, Haiti 54.8, Hong Kong, China (SAR) 94.6, Hungary 99.4, Lebanon 88.3, Poland 99.8 and Uzbekistan 80.4. Note that the 1991 census in Comoros indicates a literacy rate of 91% for the three independent islands. ^k 5 Data are from national sources. ^q 6 Data are from the Secretariat of the Caribbean Community, based on national sources. ^w 7 www.moe.gov.lk ^aa 8 Data refer to North Sudan only. ^ab 9 UNDP 2007. ^p 10 Calculation made based on literacy rates of 92.7% for the West Bank and 94.3% for the Gaza Strip[9] and relative population sizes of 62.3% in West Bank and 37.7% in Gaza Strip[10] The Holy See (Vatican City) not listed

References
^ United Nations Development Programme Report 2011.[1][2] ^ Turkish Statistical Institute, 2011 ^ http://hamshahrionline.ir/news-154929.aspx ^ http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/lebanon_statistics.html ^ Census of India 2011 http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-provresults/indiaatglance.html 6. ^ http://www.aujourdhui.ma/societe-details54010.html 7. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Morocco#Literacy 8. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html 9. ^ "Literacy Rate in Palestinian Territories - 2007 Census", Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009. Retrieved on 2011-01-11. 10. ^ "The Population, Housing and Establishment Census - 2007, Press Conference on the Preliminary Findings, (Population, Buildings, Housing Units and Establishments)", Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, February 2008. Retrieved on 2011-01-11. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Sumber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_patents Download 29 Mei 2012

List of countries by patents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This is a list of countries by patents, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 2007[1] and 2010.[2]

Contents

1 Top 20 countries in 2010 2 Top 10 countries in 2007 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

Top 20 countries in 2010

Patent applications by country (Last data: 2008) Patents granted by country (Last data: 2008) Patents in force (Last data: 2008, mixed) No. of Patents in Force 1,872,87 2 1,270,36 7 828,054 624,419 599,062 509,879

Ran k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

No. of Patent Ran Country Country Application k s 1 Japan 502,054 Japan United United 400,769 2 States States China 203,481 South 3 Korea South 172,342 Korea 4 Germany 135,748 Germany 5 China 6 France 47,597 France United 7 Russia 42,296 Kingdom 8 Italy Russia 29,176 United 9 Kingdom 26,640 Switzerlan 10 d Switzerlan

No. of Ran Patents Country k Grante d United 1 239,338 States 146,871 2 79,652 53,752 48,814 25,535 22,870 12,789 12,162 11,291 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 Japan China South Korea United Kingdom Germany France

438,926 268,384 Europe (E.P.O.) Hong 227,918 Kong

d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Netherland s Italy Canada Sweden Australia Finland Israel Spain 25,927 11 21,911 21,330 17,051 11,230 10,133 9,877 8,277 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Netherland s Canada Sweden Finland Australia Spain Belgium Israel 11,103 8,188 7,453 4,675 4,386 3,636 2,948 2,665

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

166,079 Spain Russia 147,067 Canada 121,889 107,708 Australia Sweden 105,571 87,189 Belgium (2003) Ireland 78,761 Mexico 73,076 Monaco 50,392 Luxembour 49,947 g Finland 47,070

7,719 Denmark Austria 7,711 Belgium 7,592

2,347 Denmark Austria 2,306

Top 10 countries in 2007

Change in value from the last report is given as follows: = increase. = steady. = decrease. Resident filings Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Country Japan United States South Korea China Germany Russia United Kingdom France Australia India Non-resident filings % % Rank Country Change Change United -0.1 1 6.3 States 9.7 2 11.4 Japan 3 Germany 6.0 16.1 South 4 27.3 Korea 42.1 5 France 8.1 -0.2 6 12.7 Netherlands 2.9 United 7 7.7 -7.0 Kingdom -1.7 1.1 -8.0 8 9 10 Switzerland Canada Italy 15.6 3.3 7.4

Top 10 countries of filing % Rank Country Change 1 0.9 Japan United 2 9.5 States 3 32.9 China South 4 14.8 Korea 5 6 7 8 9 10 Germany Canada Russia Australia United Kingdom India 1.7 1.5 6.8 3.3 -6.6 1.3

Resident filings per GDP Resident filings per million % population Rank Country Change

Resident filings per R&D expenditure

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Country Japan South Korea United States Germany Australia New Zealand Finland Denmark United Kingdom Sweden

% 1 Change 2 -0.3 15.6 8.6 -0.1 0.0 14.7 -9.3 -11.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

South Korea Japan Germany New Zealand United States Russia Australia Finland China

11.7 1.7 -1.1 13.9 6.3 -3.3 -1.7 -10.9 29.0

Rank Country 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Korea Japan New Zealand Russia Ukraine Australia China

Million $1 R&D 5.08 3.37 1.82 1.56 1.09 1.02 0.91

Germany 0.91 Poland 0.77 9 -7.5 10 -14.3 9 Denmark United 10 0.72 10 -9.2 States Number of patents granted Patents in force Rank Country No. of Patents Rank Country No. of Patents 1 United States 197,019 1 1,613,776 Japan 2 185,827 Japan 2 United States 1,214,556 3 South Korea 63,865 3 353,251 South Korea 4 Germany 48,700 4 Germany 245,403 5 22,413 5 172,912 France France 6 21,519 China 6 Russia 99,819 7 19,948 7 United Kingdom 79,855 Russia 8 United Kingdom 13,304 8 59,087 China 9 Canada 55,977 9 8,583 Switzerland 10 52,754 10 8,416 Switzerland Netherlands

See also

Patent

References
1. ^ http://www.cetraonline.it/file_doc/285/wipo_pub_931.pdf 2. ^ http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/

Sumber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment Download 29 Mei 2012

Programme for International Student Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "PISA" redirects here. For other uses, see Pisa (disambiguation).

Programme for International Student Assessment

Abbreviation Formation PISA 1997 Comparison of education attainment across the world OECD Headquarters 2 rue Andr Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16 World 59 government education departments Andreas Schleicher PISA Governing Body (Chair - Lorna Bertrand, England) OECD

Purpose/focus

Headquarters Location Region served Membership Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division

Main organ

Parent organization

Website

PISA

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in member and nonmember nations of 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading. It was first performed in 2000 and then repeated every three years. It is done with view to improving educational policies and outcomes. The data have increasingly been used both to assess the impact of educational quality on incomes and growth and to understand what causes differences in achievement across nations.[1] 470,000 15-years-old students representing 65 nations and territories participated in PISA 2009. An additional 50,000 students representing 9 nations were tested in 2010.[2] The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement are similar studies.

Contents

1 Framework 2 Development and implementation 3 Method of testing o 3.1 Sampling o 3.2 The test o 3.3 National add-ons o 3.4 Data Scaling 4 Results o 4.1 Historical tables 4.1.1 20002006 4.1.2 2006 4.1.3 2009 o 4.2 Pisa 2009+ 4.2.1 Reaction in India o 4.3 Comparison with other studies o 4.4 Topical studies 5 Reception 6 Research on causes of country differences 7 Criticism o 7.1 United States o 7.2 Performance of U.S. states in international comparisons o 7.3 China o 7.4 Portugal 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading o 10.1 Official websites and reports o 10.2 About reception and political consequences o 10.3 Criticism 11 External links

11.1 Video clips

Framework
PISA stands in a tradition of international school studies, undertaken since the late 1950s by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Much of PISA's methodology follows the example of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, started in 1995), which in turn was much influenced by the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The reading component of PISA is inspired by the IEA's Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). PISA aims at testing literacy in three competence fields: reading, mathematics, science. The PISA mathematics literacy test asks students to apply their mathematical knowledge to solve problems set in various real-world contexts. To solve the problems students must activate a number of mathematical competencies as well as a broad range of mathematical content knowledge. TIMSS, on the other hand, measures more traditional classroom content such as an understanding of fractions and decimals and the relationship between them (curriculum attainment). PISA claims to measure education's application to real-life problems and life-long learning (workforce knowledge). In the reading test, "OECD/PISA does not measure the extent to which 15-year-old students are fluent readers or how competent they are at word recognition tasks or spelling". Instead, they should be able to "construct, extend and reflect on the meaning of what they have read across a wide range of continuous and non-continuous texts"[3]

Development and implementation

Developed from 1997, the first PISA assessment was carried out in 2000. The results of each period of assessment take about one year and half to be analysed. First results were published in November 2001. The release of raw data and the publication of technical report and data handbook took only place in spring 2002. The triennial repeats follow a similar schedule; the process of seeing through a single PISA cycle, start-to-finish, always takes over four years. Every period of assessment focusses on one of the three competence fields reading, math, science; but the two others are tested as well. After nine years, a full cycle is completed: after 2000, reading is again the main domain in 2009.
Period Main focus # OECD countries # other countries # students Notes

2000

Reading

28

The Netherlands disqualified from data 265,000 analysis. 11 additional non-OECD countries took the test in 2002 275,000 UK disqualified from data analysis. Also

2003

Mathematics 30

11

included test in problem solving. 2006 2009 Science Reading 30 34 27 33? Results made available on 7 December 2010 [4]

PISA is sponsored, governed, and coordinated by the OECD. The test design, implementation, and data analysis is delegated to an international consortium of research and educational institutions led by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). ACER leads in developing and implementing sampling procedures and assisting with monitoring sampling outcomes across these countries. The assessment instruments fundamental to PISA's Reading, Mathematics, Science, Problem-solving, Computer-based testing, background and contextual questionnaires are similarly constructed and refined by ACER. ACER also develops purpose-built software to assist in sampling and data capture, and analyses all data. The source code of the data analysis software is not made public.

Method of testing
Sampling

The students tested by PISA are aged between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months at the beginning of the assessment period. The school year pupils are in is not taken into consideration. Only students at school are tested, not home-schoolers. In PISA 2006, however, several countries also used a grade-based sample of students. This made it possible also to study how age and school year interact. To fulfill OECD requirements, each country must draw a sample of at least 5,000 students. In small countries like Iceland and Luxembourg, where there are less than 5,000 students per year, an entire age cohort is tested. Some countries used much larger samples than required to allow comparisons between regions.
The test

PISA test documents on a school table (Neues Gymnasium, Oldenburg, Germany, 2006)

Each student takes a two-hour handwritten test. Part of the test is multiple-choice and part involves fuller answers. In total there are six and a half hours of assessment material, but each student is not tested on all the parts. Following the cognitive test, participating students spend nearly one more hour answering a questionnaire on their background including learning habits, motivation and family. School directors also fill in a questionnaire describing school demographics, funding etc. In selected countries, PISA started also experimentation with computer adaptive testing.
National add-ons

Countries are allowed to combine PISA with complementary national tests. Germany does this in a very extensive way: on the day following the international test, students take a national test called PISA-E (E=Ergnzung=complement). Test items of PISAE are closer to TIMSS than to PISA. While only about 5,000 German students participate in both the international and the national test, another 45,000 take only the latter. This large sample is needed to allow an analysis by federal states. Following a clash about the interpretation of 2006 results, the OECD warned Germany that it might withdraw the right to use the "PISA" label for national tests.[5]
Data Scaling

From the beginning, PISA has been designed with one particular method of data analysis in mind. Since students work on different test booklets, raw scores must be scaled to allow meaningful comparisons. This scaling is done using the Rasch model of item response theory (IRT). According to IRT, it is not possible to assess the competence of students who solved none or all of the test items. This problem is circumvented by imposing a Gaussian prior probability distribution of competences.[6] One and the same scale is used to express item difficulties and student competences. The scaling procedure is tuned such that the a posteriori distribution of student competences, with equal weight given to all OECD countries, has mean 500 and standard deviation 100.

Results
The official reports only contain domain-specific scores and do not combine the different domains into an overall score. The final scoring is adjusted so that the OECD average in each domain is 500 and the standard deviation is 100.[7]
Historical tables The embedded lists in this article may contain items that are not encyclopedic. Please help out by removing such elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article. (September 2011)

All PISA results are broken down by countries. Public attention concentrates on just one outcome: achievement mean values by countries. These data are regularly published in form of "league tables".[citation needed]

The following table gives the mean achievements of OECD member countries in the principal testing domain of each period:[8] In the official reports, country rankings are communicated in a more elaborate form: not as lists, but as cross tables, indicating for each pair of countries whether or not mean score differences are statistically significant (unlikely to be due to random fluctuations in student sampling or in item functioning). In favorable cases, a difference of 9 points is sufficient to be considered significant.[citation needed] In some popular media, test results from all three literacy domains have been consolidated in an overall country ranking. Such meta-analysis is not endorsed by the OECD. The official reports only contain domain-specific country scores. In part of the official reports, however, scores from a period's principal testing domain are used as proxy for overall student ability.[9]
20002006

Top results for the main areas of investigation of PISA, in 2000, 2003 and 2006.
2000[3] Reading literacy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Finland Canada New Zealand Australia Ireland South Korea United Kingdom Japan Sweden Austria Belgium Iceland Norway 546 1. 534 2. 529 3. 528 4. 527 5. 525 6. 523 7. 522 516 507 507 507 505 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 2003 Mathematics Finland South Korea Netherlands Japan Canada Belgium Switzerland Australia New Zealand Czech Republic Iceland Denmark 544 1. 542 2. 538 3. 534 4. 532 5. 529 6. 527 7. 524 8. 523 9. 516 10. 515 11. 514 12. 13. 2006 Science Finland Canada Japan New Zealand Australia Netherlands South Korea Germany United Kingdom Czech Republic Switzerland Austria Belgium 563 534 531 530 527 525 522 516 515 513 512 511 510

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

France United States Denmark Switzerland Spain Czech Republic Italy Germany Hungary Poland Greece Portugal Luxembourg Russia Latvia Mexico Brazil

505 13. 504 14. 497 15. 494 16. 493 492 487 484 480 479 474 470 441 462 458 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

France Sweden Austria Germany Ireland Slovakia Norway Luxembourg Poland Hungary Spain United States Italy Portugal Greece Turkey Mexico

511 14. 503 15. 506 16. 503 17. 503 18. 498 19. 495 20. 493 21. 490 22. 490 23. 485 24. 483 25. 466 26. 466 27. 445 28. 423 29. 385 30.

Ireland Hungary Sweden Poland Denmark France Iceland United States Slovakia Spain Norway Luxembourg Italy Portugal Greece Turkey Mexico

508 504 503 498 496 495 491 489 488 488 487 486 475 474 473 424 410

422 28. 396 29.

2006

Top 10 countries for Pisa 2006 results in Math, Sciences and Reading.
Programme for International Student Assessment (2006) (OECD member countries in boldface) Maths Sciences Reading

1. 2. 3. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 8. 10.

Taiwan Finland Hong Kong

549 1. 548 2. 547 3.

Finland Hong Kong Canada Taiwan Estonia Japan

563 1. 542 2. 534 3. 532 4. 531 5. 531 6.

South Korea 556 Finland Hong Kong Canada 547 536 527

South Korea 547 4. Netherlands 531 5. Switzerland Canada Macau 530 5. 527 7. 525 8.

New Zealand 521 Ireland Australia 517 513

New Zealand 530 7. Australia 527 8.

Liechtenstein 510 Poland Sweden 508 507

Liechtenstein 525 9. Japan 523 10.

Netherlands 525 9. Liechtenstein 522 10.

2009

Top 30 countries for Pisa 2009 results in Maths, Sciences and Reading. For a complete list, see [4].
Programme for International Student Assessment (2009) (OECD members as of the time of the study in boldface) For complete list, see [5] Maths Sciences
[10]

Reading

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Shanghai, China Singapore

600 1. 562 2.

Shanghai, China Finland

575 1. 554 2.

Shanghai, China South Korea Finland

556 539 536

Hong Kong, China 555 3. South Korea Taiwan Finland Liechtenstein 546 4. 543 5. 541 6. 536 7.

Hong Kong, China 549 3. Singapore Japan South Korea New Zealand 542 4. 539 5. 538 6. 532 7.

Hong Kong, China 533 Singapore Canada New Zealand 526 524 521

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Switzerland Japan Canada Netherlands Macau, China New Zealand Belgium Australia Germany Estonia Iceland Denmark Slovenia Norway France Slovakia Austria Poland Sweden Czech Republic

534 8. 529 9. 527 10. 526 11. 525 519 515 12. 13. 14.

Canada Estonia Australia Netherlands Liechtenstein Germany Taiwan Switzerland

529 8. 528 9. 527 10. 522 11. 520 12. 520 13. 520 14. 517 15.

Japan Australia Netherlands Belgium Norway Estonia Switzerland Poland Iceland United States Liechtenstein Sweden Germany Ireland France Taiwan Denmark

520 515 508 506 503 501 501 500 500 500 499 497 497 496 496 495 495

514 15. 513 16. 512 17. 507 18. 503 19. 501 20. 498 21. 497 497 496 495 22. 23. 24. 25.

United Kingdom 514 16. Slovenia Macau, China Poland Ireland Belgium Hungary United States Norway Czech Republic Denmark France Iceland Sweden Latvia 512 17. 511 18. 508 19. 508 20. 507 21. 503 22. 502 23. 500 24. 500 25. 499 26. 498 27. 496 28. 495 29. 494 30.

United Kingdom 494 Hungary Portugal Macau, China Italy Latvia 494 489 487 486 484

494 26. 493 27.

United Kingdom 492 28. Hungary United States 490 29. 487 30.

: 65. Kyrgyzstan

: 331 65. Kyrgyzstan

: 330 65 Kyrgyzstan 314

PISA 2009 Mathematics results.

PISA 2009 Science results.

PISA 2009 Reading results.

PISA 2009 mathematics results. Dark blue nations scored statistically significantly above the OECD average. Intermediate blue nations not statistically significantly different from the OECD average. Light blue nations statistically significantly below the OECD average. For some nations (China, India, Venezuela) only students from limited areas were tested as indicated in the map.

Pisa 2009+

An additional group of ten economies were tested in 2010 after the main group of 65.[11] These were (with mean maths, sciences, and reading scores):

Costa Rica 409,430,443 Georgia 379,373,374 India-Himachal Pradesh 338,325,317 India-Tamil Nadu 351,348,337 Malaysia 404,422,414 Malta 463,461,442 Mauritius 420,417,407 Miranda-Venezuela 397,422,422 Moldova 397,413,388 The United Arab Emirates 421,438,431

Reaction in India

Of the 74 countries tested in the PISA 2009 cycle including the "+" nations, the two Indian states came up 72nd and 73d out of 74 in both reading and maths. The two Indian states were 73rd and 74th in science. This poor result has focused media attention in India on its poor educational system.[12] The BBC reported that as of 2008, only the top 15% of India's students reach high school.[13] The Times of India described Tamil Nadu and Himachal as "showpieces of India's education and development", yet still with score that are the worst in the world.[14]

Comparison with other studies

The correlation between PISA 2003 and TIMSS 2003 grade 8 country means is 0.84 in mathematics, 0.95 in science. The values go down to 0.66 and 0.79 if the two worst performing developing countries are excluded. Correlations between different scales and studies are around 0.80. The high correlations between different scales and studies indicate common causes of country differences (e.g. educational quality, culture, wealth or genes) or a homogenous underlying factor of cognitive competence. Western countries perform slightly better in PISA; Eastern European and Asian countries in TIMSS. Content balance and years of schooling explain most of the variation.[15]
Topical studies

An evaluation of the 2003 results showed that countries that spent more on education did not necessarily do better. Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and the Netherlands spent less but did relatively well, whereas the United States spent much more but was below the OECD average. The Czech Republic, in the top ten, spent only one third as much per student as the United States did, for example, but the USA came 24th out of 29 countries compared.[citation needed] Another point made in the evaluation was that students with higher-earning parents are better-educated and tend to achieve higher results. This was true in all the countries tested, although more obvious in certain countries, such as Germany.[citation needed] It has been suggested that the Finnish language plays an important part in Finland's PISA success.[16] International testing, including both PISA and TIMSS, has been a central part of many recent analyses of how cognitive skills relate to economic outcomes. These studies consider both individual earnings and aggregate growth differences of nations.[17] In 2010, the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results revealed that Shanghai students scored the highest in the world in every category (Math, Reading and Science). The OECD described Shanghai as a pioneer of educational reform, noting that "there has been a sea change in pedagogy". OECD point out that they "abandoned their focus on educating a small elite, and instead worked to construct a more inclusive system. They also significantly increased teacher pay and training, reducing the emphasis on rote learning and focusing classroom activities on problem solving."[18] According to the Financial Times[19]: The OECD noted that even in rural China results approached average levels for the OECD countries:"Citing further, as-yet unpublished OECD research, Mr Schleicher said: We have actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in China. Even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average.[20] For a developing country, Chinas 99.4% enrolment in primary education is already, as the OECD puts it, the envy of many countries while junior secondary school participation rates in China are now 99%. But in Shanghai not only has senior secondary school enrolment attained 98% but admissions into higher education have achieved 80% of the relevant age group. That this growth reflects quality, not just quantity, is confirmed clearly by the OECDs ranking of Shanghais secondary education as world number one.[21]According to OECD, China has also expanded school access, and moved away from learning by rote. The last

point is key: Russia performs well in rote-based assessments, but not in Pisa, says Schleicher, head of the indicators and analysis division at the OECDs directorate for education. China does well in both rote-based and broader assessments.[22]

Reception
For many countries, the first PISA results were surprising. In Germany and the United States, for example, the comparatively low scores brought on heated debate about how the school system should be changed.[citation needed] Some headlines in national newspapers, for example, were:

"La France, lve moyen de la classe OCDE" (France, average student of the OECD class) Le Monde, December 5, 2001 "Miserable Noten fr deutsche Schler" (Abysmal marks for German students) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, December 4, 2001 "Are we not such dunces after all?" The Times, United Kingdom, December 6, 2001 "Economic Time Bomb: U.S. Teens Are Among Worst at Math" Wall Street Journal December 7, 2004 "Preocupe-se. Seu filho mal educado." (Be worried. Your child is badly educated.) Veja November 7, 2007 "La educacin espaola retrocede" (Spanish education moving backwards) El Pas December 5, 2007 "Finnish teens score high marks in latest PISA study" Helsingin Sanomat November 30, 2007

The results from PISA 2003 and PISA 2006 were featured in the 2010 documentary Waiting for "Superman".[23]

Research on causes of country differences

PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS, their organizers and researchers, are restrained in giving reasons for the large and stable country differences. Cautiously they leave this task to other researchers, especially from the economic sciences and psychology. Economic researchers studied single educational policy factors like central exams (John Bishop),[24] private schools or streaming between schools at later age (Hanushek/Woessman).[25] An extensive literature related to cross-countries difference in scores has developed since 2000.[1] The stable, good results of Finland have attracted a lot of attention. According to Hannu Simola[26] the results are due to a paradoxical mix of progressive policies implemented through a rather conservative pedagogic setting, where the high levels of teachers` academic preparation, social status, professionalism and motivation for the job are concomitant with the adherence to traditional roles and methods by both teachers and pupils in Finland`s changing, but still rather authoritarian culture. Others have suggested that Finland's low poverty rate is a reason for its success.[27][28] It has been suggested that the Finnish language plays an important part in Finland's PISA success.[29] Lynn and Meisenberg (2010) found very high correlations (r>0.90) between mean student assessment results from PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and others and IQ measurements at the country data level.[30]

Heiner Rindermann and Stephen Ceci in a review state that studies have found that student achievement is related to many outcomes important to society such as democratization, health, and productivity. Thus, reducing the gap between nations in student achievement may also reduce the gap between nations on these outcomes. They argue that differences in educational systems can explain a part of the differences in student achievement. They "document a number of positive predictors of international differences in student competence, including the amount of preschool education, student discipline, quantity of education, attendance at additional schools, early tracking, the use of centralized exams and high-stakes tests, and adult educational attainment. We found rather negative relationships for grade retention rates, age of school onset, and class size."[31]

Criticism
United States

Critics, such as Mel Riddile of the NASSP say that low performance in the United States is closely related to American poverty, but the same reasoning applies to other countries.[27][28] Riddile also shown that when adjusted for poverty, the richest areas in the US, especially areas with less than 10% poverty can perform an average PISA score of 551 (higher than any other country). The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative OECD poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates.[28] It should be noted that the poverty rates here are based on relative poverty, not absolute poverty as defined by a single standard.
Country Poverty Rate PISA score 551 536 508 506 501 527 524 521 520

United States < 10% Finland Netherlands Belgium Switzerland 3.4% 9.0% 6.7% 6.8%

United States 10%24.9% Canada 13.6%

New Zealand 16.3% Japan 14.3%

Australia

11.6%

515 502 501

United States 2549.9% Estonia Poland 14.5%

500 471 471 464 449 446 425

United States 5074.9% Austria Turkey Chile United States > 75% Mexico NASSP 13.3%

Performance of U.S. states in international comparisons

Two studies have compared high achievers in mathematics on the PISA and the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Comparisons were made between those scoring at the "advanced" and "proficient" levels in mathematics on the NAEP with the corresponding performance on the PISA. Overall, 30 nations had higher percentages than the U.S. of students at the "advanced" level of mathematics. The only OECD countries with worse results were Portugal, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico. Six percent of U.S. students were "advanced" in mathematics compared to 28 percent in Taiwan. The highest ranked state in the U.S. (Massachusetts) was just 15th in the world if it was compared with the nations participating in the PISA. 31 nations had higher percentages of "proficient" students than the U.S. Massachusetts was again the best U.S. state, but it ranked just ninth in the world if compared with the nations participating in the PISA.[32][33] Comparisons with results for the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) appear to give different resultssuggesting that the U.S. states actually do better in world rankings.[34] The difference in apparent rankings is, however, almost entirely accounted for by the sampling of countries. PISA includes all of the OECD countries, while TIMSS is much more weighted in its sampling toward developing countries.
China

Education professor Yong Zhao has said the high scores in China are due to an excessive workload and testing, and added that it's "no news that the Chinese education system is excellent in preparing outstanding test takers, just like other education systems within the

Confucian cultural circleSingapore, Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong."[35] Zhao also noted that most major Chinese media outlets did not pay much attention to this story. Others have criticized Shanghai for being sampled on the test instead of the country at large and say that it's an outlier among China and that most of the country has a lower quality of education.[28]
Portugal

According to OECD's PISA, the average Portuguese 15-years old student was for many years underrated and underachieving in terms of reading literacy, mathematics and science knowledge in the OECD, nearly tied with the Italian and just above those from countries like Greece, Turkey and Mexico. However, since 2010, PISA results for Portuguese students improved dramatically. The Portuguese Ministry of Education announced a 2010 report published by its office for educational evaluation GAVE (Gabinete de Avaliao do Ministrio da Educao) which criticized the results of PISA 2009 report and claimed that the average Portuguese teenage student had profund handicaps in terms of expression, communication and logic, as well as a low performance when asked to solve problems. They also claimed that those fallacies are not exclusive of Portugal but indeed occur in other countries due to the way PISA was designed.[36]

See also

Teaching And Learning International Survey (TALIS) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

References
1. ^ a b Hanushek, Eric A., and Ludger Woessmann. 2011. "The economics of international differences in educational achievement." In Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 3, edited by Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann. Amsterdam: North Holland: 89-200. 2. ^ PISA 2009 Technical Report, 2012, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/31/50036771.pdf 3. ^ Chapter 2 of the publication "PISA 2003 Assessment Framework", pdf 4. ^ http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3343,en_2649_35845621_44949730_1_1_1_1,00.ht ml 5. ^ C. Fller: Pisa hat einen kleinen, frhlichen Bruder. taz, 5.12.2007 [1] 6. ^ The scaling procedure is described in nearly identical terms in the Technical Reports of PISA 2000, 2003, 2006. It is similar to procedures employed in NAEP and TIMSS. According to J. Wuttke Die Insignifikanz signifikanter Unterschiede. (2007, in German), the description in the Technical Reports is incomplete and plagued by notational errors. 7. ^ PISA 2009. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_46567613_1_1_1 _1,00.html 8. ^ OECD (2001) p. 53; OECD (2004a) p. 92; OECD (2007) p. 56. 9. ^ E.g. OECD (2001), chapters 7 and 8: Influence of school organization and socio-economic background upon performance in the reading test. Reading was the main domain of PISA 2000. 10. ^ Official PISA site data. For list See "Executive Summary"

11. ^ https://mypisa.acer.edu.au/images/mypisadoc/acer_pisa%202009%2B%20international.pdf 12. ^ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/poor-pisa-ranks-hrd-seeks-reason/896777/ 13. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7267315.stm 14. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Indian-students-rank-2nd-lastin-global-test/articleshow/11492508.cms 15. ^ M. L. Wu: A Comparison of PISA and TIMSS 2003 achievement results in Mathematics. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, New York, March, 2008. [2]. 16. ^ Why does Finnish give better PISA results? 17. ^ Eric A. Hanushek, and Ludger Woessmann. 2008. "The role of cognitive skills in economic development." Journal of Economic Literature 46, no. 3 (September): 607-668. 18. ^ Peter Gumbel (Paris) (December 7, 2010). "China Beats Out Finland for Top Marks in Education". TIME. 19. ^ http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/12/07/why-are-chinese-schoolkids-so-good/ 20. ^ http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2010/12/new-data-shows-shanghaisrapid-rise-as-a-world-class-education-centre.html 21. ^ http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2010/12/new-data-shows-shanghaisrapid-rise-as-a-world-class-education-centre.html 22. ^ http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2010/12/new-data-shows-shanghaisrapid-rise-as-a-world-class-education-centre.html 23. ^ "Waiting for "Superman" trailer". Retrieved October 8, 2010. 24. ^ Bishop, J. H. (1997). The effect of national standards and curriculum-based exams on achievement. American Economic Review, 87, 260-264. 25. ^ Hanushek, E. A. & Woessmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. Economic Journal, 116, C63-C76. 26. ^ Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41, 455-470. 27. ^ a b "The Economics Behind International Education Rankings" National Educational Association 28. ^ a b c d "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid" National Association of Secondary School Principals 29. ^ Why does Finnish give better PISA results? 30. ^ Lynn, R. & Meisenberg, G. (2010). National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations. Intelligence, 38, 353-360. 31. ^ Rindermann, H. & Ceci, S. J. (2009). Educational policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 551577. 32. ^ Paul E. Peterson, Ludger Woessmann, Eric A. Hanushek, and Carlos X. Lastra-Anadn (2011) "Are U.S. students ready to compete? The latest on each states international standing." Education Next 11, no. 4 (Fall): 51-59. http://educationnext.org/are-u-s-studentsready-to-compete/ 33. ^ Eric A. Hanushek, Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann (2011) "Teaching math to the talented." Education Next 11, no. 1 (Winter): 10-18. http://educationnext.org/teachingmath-to-the-talented/ 34. ^ Gary W. Phillips (2007) Chance favors the prepared mind: Mathematics and science indicators for comparing states. Washington: American Institutes for Research (November 14); Gary W. Phillips (2009) The Second Derivative:International Benchmarks in Mathematics For U.S. States and School Districts. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research (June). 35. ^ "A True Wake-up Call for Arne Duncan: The Real Reason Behind Chinese Students Top PISA Performance", Yong Zhao

36. ^ (Portuguese) http://tv2.rtp.pt/noticias/?t=Ministerio-aponta-graves-problemas-aosalunos-portugueses.rtp&article=403245&visual=3&layout=10&tm=9 Estudo do ministrio aponta graves problemas aos alunos portugueses], GAVE (Gabinete de Avaliao do Ministrio da Educao) 2010 report in RTP

Further reading
Official websites and reports

OECD/PISA website (Javascript required) o OECD (1999): Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills. A New Framework for Assessment. Paris: OECD, ISBN 92-64-17053-7 [6] o OECD (2001): Knowledge and Skills for Life. First Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000. o OECD (2003a): The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework. Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-6410172-2 [7] o OECD (2004a): Learning for Tomorrow's World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-64-00724-6 [8] o OECD (2004b): Problem Solving for Tomorrow's World. First Measures of CrossCurricular Competencies from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-64-00642-3 o OECD (2005): PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-64-01053-6 o OECD (2007): Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World: Results from PISA 2006 [9]

About reception and political consequences

General: o A. P. Jakobi, K. Martens: Diffusion durch internationale Organisationen: Die Bildungspolitik der OECD. In: K. Holzinger, H. Jrgens, C. Knill: Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken. VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften, 2007. France: N. Mons, X. Pons: The reception and use of Pisa in France. Germany: o E. Bulmahn [then federal secretary of education]: PISA: the consequences for Germany. OECD observer, no. 231/232, May 2002. pp. 3334. o H. Ertl: Educational Standards and the Changing Discourse on Education: The Reception and Consequences of the PISA Study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, v 32 n 5 pp 619634 Nov 2006. United Kingdom: o S. Grek, M. Lawn, J. Ozga: Study on the Use and Circulation of PISA in Scotland. [10]
o

Criticism

Books:
o o

S. Hopmann, G. Brinek, M. Retzl (eds.): PISA zufolge PISA. PISA According to PISA. LIT-Verlag, Wien 2007, ISBN 3-8258-0946-3 (partly in German, partly in English) T. Jahnke, W. Meyerhfer (eds.): PISA & Co Kritik eines Programms. Franzbecker, Hildesheim 2007 (2nd edn.), ISBN 978-3-88120-464-4 (in German)

R. Mnch: Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA, McKinsey & Co. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 2009. ISBN 978-3518-12560-1 (in German) Websites: o J . Wuttke: Critical online bibliography o Correlation of 2009-PISA Scores with National GDP PISA versus GDP

External links

PISA Interactive world map of PISA results

Video clips

Andreas Schleicher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Science_Study

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

TIMSS 2007 8th grade average Mathematics scores

TIMSS 2007 8th grade average Science scores

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is an international assessment of the mathematics and science knowledge of fourth grade and eighth grade students around the world. TIMSS was developed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) to allow participating nations to compare students' educational achievement across borders. The IEA also conducts the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). TIMSS was first administered in 1995, and every 4 years thereafter. 59 nations and 425,000 students participated in TIMSS 2007.[1] TIMSS 2011 testing has been done and the results will be published 2012.[2] Another similar study is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

Contents

1 Method o 1.1 1995 o 1.2 United States 2007 2 Top 10 countries by subject and year o 2.1 Math (8th grade) o 2.2 Science (8th grade) 3 All average country scores for 8th graders 4 See also 5 Notes 6 Key publications 7 External links

Method
TIMSS consists of an assessment of mathematics and science, as well as student, teacher, and school questionnaires. The current assessment includes those topics in mathematics and science that students are likely to have been exposed to up to and including grade 4 and grade 8. Two different scoring systems have been used. In one the final score is adjusted so that the average is always 500 and standard deviation is always 100 for each test. This is recalculated for each test year so that so that these values stay the same. In another system the 1995 average and standard deviation are kept for subsequent years which may cause the subsequent years to have different averages and standard deviations from 500 and 100. This in part due to participating nations changing. This system allows easier comparisons between testing years.[3]
1995

The 1995 assessment included grades 4, 8, and the final year of high school. To be able to assess the knowledge of students, assessment items exhibit a range of difficulty and complexity. The student questionnaires are designed to collect information on students' backgrounds, attitudes and beliefs related to schooling and learning, information about their classroom experiences, among many other topics. The teacher and school questionnaires asks about class scheduling, mathematics and science content coverage, school policies, teachers' educational backgrounds and preparation, among many other topics. TIMSS was created through an extensive collaboration among participating countries. Curriculum, measurement, and education experts from around the world worked together to create the assessment frameworks, item pools, and questionnaires. TIMSS is based on the curricula of schools around the world, and is organized to investigate how students are provided educational opportunities, and the factors that influence how students make use of these opportunities. Having its basis in the curricula of schools around the world, TIMSS intends to investigate three levels: the intended curriculum; the implemented curriculum; and the achieved curriculum. The intended curriculum is defined as the mathematics and science that societies intend for students to learn and how education systems are organized to meet

this demand; the implemented curriculum is what is actually taught in classrooms, who teaches it, and how it is taught; the achieved curriculum is what students have learned. The various questionnaires seek information on the intended and implemented curriculum; the assessment seeks to ascertain what students know. US results relative to those of other nations decreased with increasing age so 12th grade performed worse than 8th grade which performed worse than 4th grade.[4]
United States 2007

International educational math scores (2007)

(4th graders average score, TIMSS International Math and Science Study, 2007)

In the United States, TIMSS is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education.

Data for US students is further tracked for ethnic and racial groups, which can be tracked as the nation. As a whole, grade four students in the United States lagged Asian American the best Asian and European nations in the 2007 TIMSS international math and science test. However, European American broken down by race, Asian Americans scored comparably to Asian nations, European Americans Hispanic American scored comparably to the best European nations (although European nations aggregate their own result African American independent of race or origin). Hispanic Americans Highlights From TIMSS 2007 averaged 505, comparable to students in Austria and Sweden, while African Americans at 482 were comparable to Norway.

American students: (by origin)

Maths Score 582 550 504 482

Grade eight students in the United States also lagged the best Asian and European nations in the 2007 TIMSS international math and science test. Broken down by race, in math, US Asians (with no distinction between East Asians and other Asians) scored comparably to, although lower than sampled East Asian nations at 549, white Americans scored comparably to, although more strongly than, the best European nations, at 533, Hispanic Americans averaged 475, comparable to students in Malaysia and Norway, while African Americans at 457 were comparable to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Lebanon.[5]

Top 10 countries by subject and year

Math (8th grade) TIMSS1995 TIMSS-R1999 1. 2. TIMSS2003 Singapore 605 South Korea Hong Kong 589 TIMSS2007

1. 2. 3.

Singapore 643 1. South Korea Japan 607 2. 605 3.

Singapore 604 South Korea Taiwan 587

1. 2.

Taiwan South Korea

598 597

585 3.

586 3.

Singapore 593

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Hong Kong Belgium Czech Republic Slovakia

588 4. 565 5. 564 547 545 9. 541 10. 541 6. 7. 8.

Hong Kong Japan Belgium

582 579

4. 5. 6.

Taiwan Japan Belgium

585 4. 570 5. 537 6. 536 7. 531 8. 529 9.

Hong Kong 572 Japan Hungary England (and Wales) Russia United States Lithuania 570 517 513 512 508 506

558 7. 540 8. 534 9. Hungary 532 10. Malaysia 508 10. 531 Netherlands Estonia

Netherlands Slovakia Hungary Canada

Switzerland

9. 10.

Netherlands Slovenia

Science (8th grade) TIMSS1995 TIMSS-R1999 TIMSS2003 578 1. 571 558 4. 4. 549 5. 6. 7. Netherlands 545 6. Hong Kong Estonia Japan 556 5. 552 552 6. England (and Wales) Hungary Czech Republic Slovenia 542 539 539 538 530 530 South Korea 553 2. 3. TIMSS2007 Singapore 567 Taiwan Japan 561 554

1. 2. 3.

Singapore Czech Republic Japan

607

1.

Taiwan

569

1.

Singapore Taiwan

574 2. 571 565 5. 565 560 560 3. 4.

Singapore 568 2. Hungary Japan South Korea 552 550

South 3. Korea

South 4. Korea 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Bulgaria

Netherlands Slovenia Australia Hungary England (and Wales)

Australia 540 7. Czech Republic England Finland 539 8. 538 9. 535 10.

Hungary 543 7. 536 8.

558 8. 554 9.

Netherlands United States

Hong 527 9. Kong Russia

552 10.

Australia 527 10.

All average country scores for 8th graders

TIMSS 1995: [1] TIMSS 1999: [2] TIMSS 2003: [3][4] TIMSS 2007: [5][6]

See also

Programme for International Student Assessment, an educational ranking among OECD nations.

Notes
1. ^ TIMSS 2011 Mathematics Report, 2008, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, http://www.timss.org/ 2. ^ TIMSS 2011 Schedule, TIMSS 2011, TIMSS, http://www.timss.org/ 3. ^ TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report, 2008, IEA 4. ^ U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics "Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in International Context" NCES 98-049. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998.February 1998 EEVISED August 1998 Available for downloading at http://nces.ed.gov/timss 5. ^ Highlights From TIMSS 2007

Key publications

TIMSS 2007 Assessment Frameworks [7] TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report [8] TIMSS 2003 International Science Report [9] IEA's TIMSS 2003 International Report on Achievement in the Mathematics Cognitive Domains [10]

External links

International TIMSS U.S. Department of Education TIMSS TIMSS: What Have We Learned about Math and Science Teaching? - Education Resources Information Center Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio.

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/table07_1.asp

Enter searc

Publications & Products

o

Publications Search Publications and Products Recent Publications By Subject Index A-Z By Survey & Program Areas Products Data Products Last 6 Months Restricted-use Data Licenses Annual Reports Condition of Education Digest of Education Statistics High School Dropout and Completion Rates Indicators of School Crime and Safety Projections of Education Statistics

America's Youth: Transitions to Adulthood Surveys & Programs

o

Assessments National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) National Assessments of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Early Childhood Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) National Household Education Survey (NHES) Elementary/Secondary Common Core of Data (CCD) High School Longitudinal Study of 2009

School District Demographics System Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) more...

International International Activities Program (IAP) Library Library Statistics Program Postsecondary Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) Career/Technical Education Statistics (CTES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) more... Data Systems, Use, & Privacy Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) National Forum on Education Statistics Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program - (SLDS) more... Resources K-12 Practitioners Circle National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) Statistical Standards Program more...

Data & Tools

o

Custom Datasets & Tables Search Tools Peer Comparison Tools Questionnaire Item Banks States/District Profiles, Comparisons, and Mapping Offsite Archive of NCES Data

Tables & Figures Search Tables/Figures Popular Keyword Title Searches For Kids

Fast Facts
o

Assessments Early Childhood Elementary/Secondary International Library Postsecondary

Resources

School Search
o o

Search for Schools, Colleges and Libraries College Navigator

Other Search Tools Public Schools Public School Districts Private Schools Public Libraries News & Events
o

What's New at NCES Conferences/Training NewsFlash Funding Opportunities Press Releases StatChat

About Us
o

About NCES Commissioner Contact NCES Staff Help

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Contact UsIAP Home|TIMSS Publications & Products|Staff|Assessments & Surveys TIMSS Results 2007 Tables and Figures Table 1. Average mathematics scores of fourth- and eighth-grade students, by country: 2007

Grade four Country Hong Kong SAR1 Singapore Chinese Taipei Japan Average score 607 599 576 568

Grade eight Country TIMSS scale average Chinese Taipei Korea, Rep. of Singapore Hong Kong SAR1, 4 Average score 500 598 597 593 572

TIMSS scale average 500

Kazakhstan2

549

Japan Hungary England4 Russian Federation United States4, 5 Lithuania

2

570 517 513 512 508 506 504 501 499 496 491 488 487 486 480 474 469 465 464 463 462 461
2, 5

Russian Federation 544 England Latvia2 Netherlands3 Lithuania

2 4, 5

541 537 535 530 529 525 523 516 510 507 505 503 502 500 496 494 492 486 473 469 438

United States Germany Denmark4 Australia Hungary Italy Austria Sweden Slovenia Armenia

Czech Republic Slovenia Armenia Australia Sweden Malta Scotland4 Serbia Italy Malaysia Norway Cyprus Bulgaria Israel7 Ukraine Romania

Slovak Republic Scotland4 New Zealand Czech Republic Norway Ukraine Georgia
2

Bosnia and Herzegovina 456 Lebanon Thailand Turkey Jordan Tunisia Georgia2 Iran, Islamic Rep. of Bahrain Indonesia Syrian Arab Republic Egypt 449 441 432 427 420 410 403 398 397 395 391

Iran, Islamic Rep. of 402 Algeria Colombia Morocco El Salvador Tunisia Kuwait Qatar Yemen
6

378 355 341 330 327 316 296 224

Algeria Colombia Oman Palestinian Nat'l Auth. Botswana Kuwait

6

387 380 372 367 364 354 340 329 309 307

El Salvador Saudi Arabia Ghana Qatar

Average score is higher than the U.S. average score (p < .05) Average score is not measurably different from the U.S. average score (p < .05) Average score is lower than the U.S. average score (p < .05) 1 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China. 2 National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined by the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). 3 Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample participation rates only after substitute schools were included. 4 Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after substitute schools were included. 5 National Defined Population covers 90 percent to 95 percent of National Target Population. 6 Kuwait tested the same cohort of students as other countries, but later in 2007, at the beginning of the next school year. 7 National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent of National Target Population (but at least 77 percent). NOTE: Countries are ordered by 2007 average score. The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported difference. Thus, a small difference between the United States and one country may be significant while a large difference between the United States and another country may not be significant. The standard errors of the estimates are shown in tables E-1 and E-2 available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009001. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2007. TIMSS Results 2007 Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Department of Education NewsFlash | Staff | Contact | Help | RSS | Privacy Policy Statistical Standards | FedStats.gov | ChildStats.gov Tables and Figures

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Contact UsIAP Home|TIMSS Publications & Products|Staff|Assessments & Surveys TIMSS Results 2007 Tables and Figures Table 3. Average science scores of fourth- and eighth-grade students, by country: 2007

Grade four Country Average score 587 557 554 548 TIMSS scale average 500 Singapore Chinese Taipei Hong Kong SAR1 Japan Latvia2 England United States Hungary Italy Kazakhstan2 Germany Australia Slovak Republic Austria Sweden Netherlands5 Slovenia Denmark3 Czech Republic Lithuania2 New Zealand Scotland3 Armenia Norway Ukraine
3, 4

Grade eight Country TIMSS scale average Singapore Chinese Taipei Japan Korea, Rep. of England3 Hungary Czech Republic Slovenia Hong Kong SAR United States3, 4 Lithuania2 Australia Sweden Scotland3 Italy Armenia Norway Ukraine Jordan Malaysia Thailand Serbia2, 4 Bulgaria Israel
7 7 1, 3

Average score 500 567 561 554 553 542 539 539 538 530 530 520 519 515 511 496 495 488 487 485 482 471 471 470 470 468 467

Russian Federation 546 542 542 539 536 535 533 528 527 526 526 525 523 518 517 515 514 504 500 484 477 474

Russian Federation

Bahrain

Iran, Islamic Rep. of 436 Georgia2 Colombia El Salvador Algeria Kuwait

6

Bosnia and Herzegovina 466 Romania Iran, Islamic Rep. of Malta Turkey Syrian Arab Republic Cyprus Tunisia Indonesia Oman Georgia2 Kuwait6 Colombia Lebanon Egypt Algeria Palestinian Nat'l Auth. Saudi Arabia El Salvador Botswana Qatar Ghana 462 459 457 454 452 452 445 427 423 421 418 417 414 408 408 404 403 387 355 319 303

418 400 390 354 348 318 297 294 197

Tunisia Morocco Qatar Yemen

Average score is higher than the U.S. average score (p < .05) Average score is not measurably different from the U.S. average score (p < .05) Average score is lower than the U.S. average score (p < .05) 1 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China. 2 National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined by the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). 3 Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after substitute schools were included. 4 National Defined Population covers 90 percent to 95 percent of National Target Population. 5 Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample participation rates only after substitute schools were included. 6 Kuwait tested the same cohort of students as other countries, but later in 2007, at the beginning of the next school year. 7 National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent of National Target Population (but at least 77 percent). NOTE: Countries are ordered by 2007 average score. The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported difference. Thus, a small difference between the

United States and one country may be significant while a large difference between the United States and another country may not be significant. The standard errors of the estimates are shown in tables E-20 and E-21 available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009001. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2007.

TIMSS 2003 Tables

Table 6. Average science scale scores of eighth-grade students, by country: 2003

Country International average1 Singapore Chinese Taipei Korea, Republic of Hong Kong SAR2,3 Estonia Japan Hungary Netherlands2 (United States) Australia Sweden Slovenia New Zealand Lithuania4 Slovak Republic Belgium-Flemish Russian Federation Latvia Scotland2 Malaysia Norway

Average score 473 578 571 558 556 552 552 543 536 527 527 524 520 520 519 517 516 514 512 512 510 494

Country Italy (Israel) Bulgaria Jordan Moldova, Republic of Romania Serbia4 Armenia Iran, Islamic Republic of (Macedonia, Republic of) Cyprus Bahrain

Average score 491 488 479 475 472 470 468 461 453 449 441 438

Palestinian National Authority 435 Egypt Indonesia4 Chile Tunisia Saudi Arabia (Morocco) Lebanon Philippines Botswana Ghana South Africa 421 420 413 404 398 396 393 377 365 255 244

Average is higher than the U.S. average Average is not measurably different from the U.S.

Country

Average score

Average is lower than the U.S. average

The international average reported here differs from that reported in Martin et al. (2004) due to the deletion of England. In Martin et al., the reported international average is 474. 2 Met international guidelines for participation rates in 2003 only after replacement schools were included. 3 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China. 4 National desired population does not cover all of the international desired population. NOTE: Countries are ordered by 2003 average score. The test for significance between the United States and the international average was adjusted to account for the U.S. contribution to the international average. The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported difference. Thus, a small difference between the United States and one country may be significant while a large difference between the United States and another country may not be significant. Parentheses indicate countries that did not meet international sampling or other guidelines in 2003. Countries were required to sample students in the upper of the two grades that contained the largest number of 13-year-olds. In the United States and most countries, this corresponds to grade 8. See table A1 in appendix A for details. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2003.

TIMSS 2003 Tables

Table 5. Average mathematics scale scores of eighth-grade students, by country: 2003

Country International average1 Singapore Korea, Republic of Hong Kong SAR2,3 Chinese Taipei Japan Belgium-Flemish Netherlands2 Estonia Hungary Malaysia Latvia Russian Federation Slovak Republic Australia (United States) Lithuania4 Sweden Scotland2 (Israel) New Zealand Slovenia

Average score 466 605 589 586 585 570 537 536 531 529 508 508 508 508 505 504 502 499 498 496 494 493

Country Italy Armenia Serbia4 Bulgaria Romania Norway Moldova, Republic of Cyprus (Macedonia, Republic of ) Lebanon Jordan Iran, Islamic Republic of Indonesia4 Tunisia Egypt Bahrain

Average score 484 478 477 476 475 461 460 459 435 433 424 411 411 410 406 401

Palestinian National Authority 390 Chile (Morocco) Philippines Botswana Saudi Arabia Ghana South Africa 387 387 378 366 332 276 264

Average is higher than the U.S. average Average is not measurably different from the U.S.

Country

Average score

Average is lower than the U.S. average

The international average reported here differs from that reported in Mullis et al. (2004) due to the deletion of England. In Mullis et al.,the reported international average is 467. 2 Met international guidelines for participation rates in 2003 only after replacement schools were included. 3 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China. 4 National desired population does not cover all of the international desired population. NOTE: Countries are ordered by 2003 average score. The test for significance between the United States and the international average was adjusted to account for the U.S. contribution to the international average. The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported difference. Thus, a small difference between the United States and one country may be significant while a large difference between the United States and another country may not be significant. Parentheses indicate countries that did not meet international sampling or other guidelines in 2003. Countries were required to sample students in the upper of the two grades that contained the largest number of 13-year-olds. In the United States and most countries, this corresponds to grade 8. See table A1 in appendix A for details. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2003.

Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Graders in 1999

In 1999, U.S. eighth-graders exceeded the international average of 38 nations in mathematics and science. In 1999, the United States was one of 34 participating nations in which eighth-grade boys and girls performed similarly in mathematics. The United States was one of 16 participating nations in which eighth-grade boys outperformed eighth-grade girls in science. Science Nation Chinese Taipei Singapore Hungary Japan Korea, Republic of Netherlands Australia Czech Republic England Finland Slovak Republic Belgium-Flemish Slovenia Canada Hong Kong SAR Russian Federation Bulgaria United States New Zealand Latvia-LSS Italy Malaysia Lithuania Thailand Romania Israel Cyprus Moldova Macedonia, Republic of

Mathematics Nation Singapore Korea, Republic of Chinese Taipei Hong Kong SAR Japan Belgium-Flemish Netherlands Slovak Republic Hungary Canada Slovenia Russian Federation Australia Finland Czech Republic Malaysia Bulgaria Latvia-LSS United States England New Zealand Lithuania Italy Cyprus Romania Moldova Thailand Israel Tunisia

Average 604 587 585 582 579 558 540 534 532 531 530 526 525 520 520 519 511 505 502 496 491 482 479 476 472 469 467 466 448

Average 569 568 552 550 549 545 540 539 538 535 535 535 533 533 530 529 518 515 510 503 493 492 488 482 472 468 460 459 458

Macedonia, Republic of 447 Jordan Turkey 429 Iran, Islamic Republic of Jordan 428 Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of 422 Turkey Indonesia 403 Tunisia Chile 392 Chile Philippines 345 Philippines Morocco 337 Morocco South Africa 275 South Africa Average is significantly higher than the U.S. average Average does not differ significantly from the U.S. average Average is significantly lower than the U.S. average

450 448 435 433 430 420 345 323 243

The full version of Highlights from TIMSS 1999 Results is available for browsing. Additional reports and articles related to the results from the TIMSS studies are also available under Publications & Products.

Key Findings

Singapore was the top-performing country in mathematics and science at both the eighth and seventh grades. Korea, Japan, and the Czech Republic also performed very well in both subjects. Hong Kong and the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium also were among the top countries in mathematics. (See pages 2 and 3 for a full listing of the results.) For most countries, even though gender differences were minimal in mathematics, they were pervasive in science. Boys outperformed girls, particularly in physics, chemistry, and earth science. Home factors were strongly related to mathematics and science achievement in every TIMSS country (i.e., educational resources, books in the home, and parents' education). In almost every country, the majority of students agreed that they did well in mathematics and science. Interestingly, some of the countries with the highest achievement also were those whose students had the most negative perceptions of success -- Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong.

Achievement in Mathematics
Eighth Grade*
Country Singapore Korea Japan Hong Kong Belgium (Fl) Czech Republic Slovak Republic Switzerland Netherlands
Average Achievement

Seventh Grade*
Country Singapore Korea Japan Hong Kong Belgium (Fl) Czech Republic Netherlands Bulgaria Austria
Average Achievement

643 607 605 588 565 564 547 545 541

601 577 571 564 558 523 516 514 509

Slovenia Bulgaria Austria France Hungary Russian Federation Australia Ireland Canada Belgium (Fr) Thailand Israel Sweden Germany New Zealand England Norway Denmark United States Scotland Latvia (LSS) Spain Iceland

541 540 539 538 537

Slovak Republic Belgium (Fr) Switzerland Hungary Russian Federation Ireland Slovenia Australia Thailand Canada France Germany Sweden England United States New Zealand Denmark Scotland Latvia (LSS) Norway Iceland Romania Spain

508 507 506 502 501

535 530 527 527 526 522 522 519 509 508 506 503 502 500 498 493 487 487

500 498 498 495 494 492 484 477 476 476 472 465 463 462 461 459 454 448

Greece Romania Lithuania Cyprus Portugal Iran, Islamic Rep. Kuwait Colombia South Africa

484 482 477 474 454 428 392 385 354

Cyprus Greece Lithuania Portugal Iran, Islamic Rep. Colombia South Africa

446 440 428 423 401 369 348

*Eighth and seventh grades in most countries. Latvia is annotated LSS for Latvian Speaking Schools only. Countries shown in italics did not satisfy one or more guidelines for sample participation rates, age/grade specifications, or classroom sampling procedures. SOURCE: IEA Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 1994-95.

Achievement in Science
Eighth Grade*
Country Singapore Czech Republic Japan Korea
Average Achievement

Seventh Grade*
Country Singapore Korea Czech Republic Japan
Average Achievement

607 574 571 565

545 535 533 531

Bulgaria Netherlands Slovenia Austria Hungary England Belgium (Fl) Australia Slovak Republic Russian Federation Ireland Sweden United States Germany Canada Norway New Zealand Thailand Israel Hong Kong Switzerland Scotland Spain

565 560 560 558 554 552 550 545 544 538 538 535 534 531 531 527 525 525 524 522 522 517 517

Bulgaria Slovenia Belgium (Fl) Austria Hungary Netherlands England Slovak Republic United States Australia Germany Canada Hong Kong Ireland Thailand Sweden Russian Federation Switzerland Norway New Zealand Spain Scotland Iceland

531 530 529 519 519 517 512 510 508 504 499 499 495 495 493 488 484 484 483 481 477 468 462

France Greece Iceland Romania Latvia (LSS) Portugal Denmark Lithuania Belgium (Fr) Iran, Islamic Rep. Cyprus Kuwait Colombia South Africa

498 497 494 486 485 480 478 476 471 470 463 430 411 326

Romania France Greece Belgium (Fr) Denmark Iran, Islamic Rep. Latvia (LSS) Portugal Cyprus Lithuania Colombia South Africa

452 451 449 442 439 436 435 428 420 403 387 317

*Eighth and seventh grades in most countries. Latvia is annotated LSS for Latvian Speaking Schools only. Countries shown in italics did not satisfy one or more guidelines for sample participation rates, age/grade specifications, or classroom sampling procedures. SOURCE: IEA Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 1994-95.

TIMSS Results About Teaching and Learning

Most countries reported that four years of post-secondary education, practice in teaching, and some form of examination were required for teacher certification. In many countries, students generally were in mathematics and science classes of fewer than 30 students. Korea was a notable exception, with most students in classes of 40 or more.

Mathematics teachers in many countries reported a high frequency of calculator use in their classes, often for checking answers, routine computation, and solving complex problems. Again, Korea was the exception, where it was reported that calculators were seldom used. Teacher demonstrations of experiments were common in science classes regardless of whether eighth graders were taught science as a single subject or as separate science subjects, as is done in much of Europe. Notwithstanding a considerable range in student reports, eighth graders in about half the countries reported doing an average of 2 or 3 hours of homework each day. Most typically, students reported studying mathematics for roughly an hour each day, and science for somewhat less than that. Eighth graders in most countries reported spending as much out-of-school time each day in non-academic activities as they did in academic activities. Most frequently, students reported watching 1 or 2 hours of television each day as well as spending several hours playing or talking with friends, and nearly 2 hours playing sports. (Of course, for teenagers, these activities often occur simultaneously, such as watching television and talking with friends on the phone.)

TIMSS 1995 is a project of the International Study Center at Boston College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_in_International_Reading_Literacy_Study

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

PIRLS 2006 The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is an international study of reading achievement in fourth graders. It is conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). "It is designed to measure childrens reading literacy achievement, to provide a baseline for future studies of trends in achievement, and to gather information about childrens home and school experiences in learning to read."[1] PIRLS 2006 tested 215,000 students from 46 educational systems.[1] PIRLS 2011 testing has been done and the results will be published 2012. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is another large international study that also tests reading.

Contents

1 History 2 PIRLS Assessment 3 Background Questionnaire 4 Questionnaire Development Group 5 Participating Offices 6 Reading Development Group 7 Participating Countries 8 Future Studies 9 References 10 External links

History

PIRLS is one of the largest international collections of reading literacy. Studies of reading literacy had been conducted prior to the study of 2001. PIRLS is the successor to the IEA studies that started in 1970 and continued to 1991 with the Reading Literacy Study. The study of 2001 started the trend for the PIRLS cyclical testing. They plan on testing every five years. By administering the test every five years, it allows countries to monitor their children's literacy achievement. Also in 2001, background information about the students and schools were collected. The reading achievement results present each country with an opportunity to examine educational policies and practices against a globally-defined benchmark, while the report also contains rich information about children's early literacy experiences and reading instruction" said PIRLS International Study Directors Ina V.S. Mullis and Michael O. Martin of Boston College.[2]

PIRLS Assessment
The PIRLS study consists of a main survey that consists of a written reading comprehension test and a background questionnaire. The PIRLS Reading Development Group (RDG) and National Research Coordinators (NRCs) from the 35 countries collaborate to develop the reading assessments. The assessment focuses on three main areas of literacy: process of comprehension, purposes for reading, and reading behaviors and attitudes. The background questionnaire is used to determine the reading behaviors and attitudes. The written test is designed to address the process of comprehension and the purposes for reading. There are two purposes for reading that are examined in this study: reading for literary experience and reading to acquire and use information. Each student receives 80 minutes to complete two passages and then time to complete the survey. There are a total of 8 passage. Four passages are for each purpose of reading. "With eight reading passages in total, but just two to be given to any one student, passages and their accompanying items were assigned to student test booklets according to a matrix sampling plan. The eight passages were distributed across 10 booklets, two per booklet, so that passages were paired together in a booklet in as many different ways as possible."[3]

Background Questionnaire
Given to:

Home/Parents --

This questionnaire includes questions about "students early reading experiences, child-parent literacy interactions, parents reading habits and attitudes, home-school connections, and demographic and socioeconomic indicators."

Students --

This questionnaire includes questions about "instructional experiences, self-perception and attitudes towards reading, out-of-school reading habits, computer use, home literacy resources, and basic demographic information."

Teachers --

This questionnaire includes questions about "characteristics of the class tested, instructional activities for teaching reading, classroom resources, assessment practices, and about their education, training, and opportunities for professional development."

Schools --

This questionnaire includes questions about "enrollment and school characteristics, school organization for reading instruction, school staffing and resources, home-school connections, and the school environment."
-- (http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2001i/pdf/P1_IR_A.pdf)

Questionnaire Development Group

Ivana Krizova (Czech Republic) Mike Marshall (Canada) Monica Rosen (Sweden) Graham Ruddock (England) Maurice Walker (New Zealand)

Participating Offices

IEA Headquarters in Amsterdam International Study Center (ISC) at Boston College Statistics Canada Educational Testing Services in Princeton, NJ National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) in Great Britain Reading Development Group (RDG)

Reading Development Group

Marilyn Binkley (United States) Karl Blueml (Austria) Sue Horner (England) Pirjo Linnakyl (Finland) Martine Remond (France) Keen See Tan (Singapore) William Tunmer (New Zealand)

Participating Countries

Argentina Belize Bulgaria Canada Colombia Cyprus Czech Republic

Hungary Iceland Iran Israel Italy Kuwait Latvia

New Zealand Norway Romania Russian Federation Scotland Singapore Slovak Republic

England France Germany Greece Hong Kong

Lithuania Macedonia Moldova Morocco Netherlands

Slovenia South Africa Sweden Turkey United States

Future Studies
The PIRLS starting a followup study in 2006. The plan is to try to get 150 schools with 30004500 students per country. They will include 35 countries and 5,400 schools. They plan to have another follow-up study in 2011 to see the long term changes.

References
1. ^ An Overview of PIRLS 2006: Design, Results and Subsequent Analysis, Oliver Neuschmidt, IEA Data Processing and Research Center Ina V.S. Mullis and Michael O. Martin, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Boston College, http://www.iaea2008.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/180462_Neuschmi dt.pdf

External links

http://www.pirls.org/ http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/ http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2001.html http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/other-publications/downloadable-reports/readingall-over-the-world-progress-in-international-reading-literacy-study.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

List of countries by Human Development Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

World map by quartiles of Human Development Index in 2011. Very High High Medium Low Data unavailable

World map indicating the Human Development Index (based on 2011 data, published on Nov 2, 2011).[1] 0.900 and over 0.8500.899 0.6500.699 0.6000.649 0.4000.449 0.3500.399

0.8000.849 0.7500.799 0.7000.749

0.5500.599 0.5000.549 0.4500.499

0.3000.349 under 0.300 Data unavailable

This is a list of all countries by Human Development Index as included in a United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report. The latest report was released on 2 November 2011 and compiled on the basis of estimates for 2011. It covers 185 member states of the United Nations (out of 193), along with Hong Kong (of the People's Republic of China), and the Palestinian territories; 8 UN member states are not included due to lack of data. The average HDI of regions of the World and groups of countries are also included for comparison. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. The index was developed in 1990 by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq[2] and Indian economist Amartya Sen.[3] Countries fall into four broad human development categories, each of which comprises 47 countries: Very High Human Development, High Human Development, Medium Human Development and Low Human Development (46 countries in this category). Due to the new methodology adopted since the 2010 Human Development Report, the new reported HDI figures appear lower than the HDI figures in previous reports. From 2007 to 2010, the first category was referred to as developed countries, and the last three are all grouped in developing countries. The original "high human development" category has been split into two as above in the report for 2007. Some older groupings (high/medium/low income countries) have been removed that were based on the gross domestic product (GDP) in purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita, and have been replaced by another index based on the gross national income (GNI) in purchasing power parity per capita. The country with the largest decrease in HDI since 1998 is Zimbabwe, falling from 0.514 in 1998 to 0.140 in 2010. The country with the largest decrease since 2009 is Cape Verde, which decreased by 0.170. Over half of the world's population live in countries with "medium human development" (51%), while less than a fifth (18%) populate countries falling in the "low human development" category. Countries with "high" to "very high" human development account for less than a third of the world's total population (30%).

Contents

1 Complete list of countries

1.1 Very high human development 1.2 High human development 1.3 Medium human development 1.4 Low human development 2 List of countries by continent o 2.1 Africa o 2.2 Americas o 2.3 Asia and Oceania o 2.4 Europe 3 List of countries by non-continental region o 3.1 Arab League member states o 3.2 European Union o 3.3 East Asia and the Pacific o 3.4 Latin America o 3.5 Middle East and North Africa 4 HDI by regions & groups 5 Countries missing from latest report o 5.1 UN member states (latest UNDP data) o 5.2 Non-UN members (not calculated by the UNDP) 6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 External links

o o o o

Complete list of countries

2011 Very High HDI nations, by population size 489.0 325.0 205.1 58 25.8

= increase. Europe = steady. = decrease. N. America Similar HDI values in the current list do not lead to ranking ties, Asia since the HDI rank is actually determined using HDI values to S. America the sixth decimal point. The number in brackets Oceania represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to new 2011 data for 2010 (as indicated in the new 2011 report, p. 131).

Very high human development Rank

New Change 2011 compare Estimate d to new s for 2011

HDI Country

Rank Country

HDI
New Change 2011 compare Estimate d to new s for 2011

New Change New Change 2011 compare 2011 compare Estimate d to new Estimate d to new s for 2011 s for 2011

2011
[1]

data for [1] 2010

2011
[1]

data for 2010

[1]

2011
[1]

data for [1] 2010

2011
[1]

data for 2010

[1]

1 2 3

Norway Australia

0.943 0.929

0.002 25

Luxembour 0.867 g 0.866

0.002

26 Netherlands United States New Zealand Canada Ireland 0.910 0.001 27 0.910 0.002 28 0.908 29 6 7 0.908 0.908 0.001 0.001 30

Singapore Czech Republic United Kingdom

0.002

0.865

0.002

0.863

0.001 0.001

Greece 0.861 United Arab Emirates Cyprus

0.846

0.001

Liechtenstei 0.905 n Germany Sweden 0.905 0.904 0.903 0.901 0.898 0.898 0.897

0.001

31 32 33 34

0.840 0.838 0.838

0.001

9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(1)

0.002 0.003 0.002

Andorra Brunei

0.001 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.005

Estonia 0.835 0.834 0.832 0.831 0.816 0.813 0.810

Switzerland Japan Hong Kong Iceland South Korea

35 0.002 36 0.004 37 0.002 0.003 38 39 40

(1)

Slovakia Malta Qatar Hungary Poland Lithuania

(1)

16 17

Denmark Israel

0.895 0.888

0.002 0.002

41

(1)

Portugal

0.809

0.001

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Belgium 0.886 Austria France Slovenia Finland Spain Italy 0.885 0.884 0.884 0.882 0.878 0.874

0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002

42 43 44 45 46 47
(1) (1)

Bahrain Latvia Chile

0.806 0.805 0.805 0.797

0.001 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002

Argentina

Croatia 0.796 0.793

0.001

Barbados

High human development Rank

New 2011 Estimate s for 2011
[1]

HDI

Rank

HDI
Change New compare 2011 d to new Estimate 2011 s for data for 2011 2010 [1]
[1]

Change compare d to new 2011 data for 2010

[1]

Country

Change New New Change compare 2011 2011 compare d to new Estimate Estimate d to new 2011 s for s for 2011 data for 2011 2011 data for 2010 [1] [1] [1] 2010 [1]

Country

48 49 50 51 52 53

Uruguay Palau

0.783 0.782 0.781 0.776 0.773 0.771

0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003

72

Saint Kitts and Nevis

0.735

73

Romania Cuba Seychelles Bahamas Montenegr o Bulgaria

Venezuela Bosnia

0.735

0.001

74 0.002 0.001

and Herzegovin a

0.733

0.002

75

Georgia
(3)

0.733

0.004

54

(1)

0.771

0.002

76

Ukraine

0.729

0.004

55

(1)

0.771

0.003

77

Mauritius

0.728

0.002

56 57 58 59

(2)

Saudi Arabia Mexico

0.770 0.770 0.768 0.766

0.003 0.003

78

(2)

Macedoni a Jamaica Peru Dominica Saint Lucia

0.728

0.002

79
(1) (1)

(2) (1) (1)

0.727 0.725 0.724

0.001 0.004 0.001

Panama Serbia Antigua

0.003 0.002

80 81

60

(1)

and Barbuda Malaysia Trinidad and Tobago Kuwait Libya Belarus Russia Grenada

0.764

0.001

82

0.723

0.003

61

(3)

0.761

0.003

83 84
(1)

Ecuador Brazil

0.720 0.718

0.002 0.003

62

(1)

0.760

0.002 Saint Vincent 0.717 and the Grenadines Armenia

(1) (1)

63 64 65 66 67 68

(1) (10)

0.760 0.760 0.756 0.755 0.748 0.745

0.002 0.010 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.005

85

(1)

0.002

86 87 88 89 90

0.716 0.710 0.707 0.705 0.704 0.701

0.002 0.003

Colombia Iran Oman Tonga Azerbaijan

(1)

Kazakhstan Costa Rica

0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001

69 70 71

(1)

0.744

0.002 91 0.002 92
(3) (1) (1)

(1) (1)

Albania 0.739 0.739

Turkey 0.699 Belize 0.699

Lebanon

0.002

93 94

Tunisia 0.698

Medium human development Rank Country HDI Rank Country HDI

New 2011 Estimate s for 2011

[1]

Change compare d to new 2011 data for 2010

[1]

Change New New Change compare 2011 2011 compare d to new Estimate Estimate d to new 2011 s for s for 2011 data for 2011 2011 data for 2010 [1] [1] [1] 2010 [1]

Change New compare 2011 d to new Estimate 2011 s for data for 2011 2010 [1]
[1]

95 96 97

(1)

Jordan Algeria

0.698 0.698 0.691

0.001 119 0.002 0.005 120 121 122

(1) (1)

Syrian 0.632 Arab Republic 0.625 0.625 0.624

0.001

(1)

Sri Lanka

Namibia Honduras Kiribati

0.003 0.002 0.003

98

(2)

Dominican Republic Samoa

(1)

0.689

0.003

99 100 101
(3)

0.688 0.688 0.687

0.002 0.001 0.005 123

(1)

Fiji China

South 0.619 Africa 0.617

0.004

124

(1)

Indonesia Vanuatu Kyrgyzsta n Tajikistan

0.004

102

Turkmenista n

0.686

0.005

125

(2)

0.617

0.002

103 104

Thailand 0.682 0.680

0.002 0.003

126

0.615

0.004

Suriname El Salvador Gabon Paraguay Bolivia

127 105 106 107 108 109 110 0.674 0.674 0.665 0.663 0.661 0.653 0.002 128 0.004 129 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 130

0.607 0.593

0.003 0.003

Vietnam

Nicaragua 0.589 0.582

0.002

Morocco

0.003

Maldives Mongolia

131

Guatemal a

0.574

0.001

111 112 113

(1) (1)

Moldova 0.649 Philippines Egypt Palestinian territories Uzbekistan Federated States of Micronesia
(2) (1)

0.005 0.003

132 133 134

Iraq Cape Verde India

(1)

0.573 0.568 0.547 0.541

0.006 0.002 0.005 0.008

0.644 0.644

114

0.641

0.001

135

Ghana

115

0.641

0.005

136

(1)

Equatorial 0.537 Guinea 0.533 0.524

0.003

116

0.636

0.001

137 138
(1) (2)

Congo Laos

0.005 0.004 0.005

117 118

Guyana

0.633 0.633

0.004 139 0.002 140

(2)

Cambodia 0.523 0.522

Botswana

Swaziland

0.002

141

(1)

Bhutan

0.522

0.004

Low human development Rank

New 2011 Estimate s for 2011
[1]

HDI

Rank

HDI
Change New compare 2011 d to new Estimate 2011 s for data for 2011 2010 [1]
[1]

Change compare d to new 2011 data for 2010

[1]

Country

Change New New Change compare 2011 2011 compare d to new Estimate Estimate d to new 2011 s for s for 2011 data for 2011 2011 data for 2010 [1] [1] [1] 2010 [1]

Country

142

Solomon Islands
(1)

166 0.510 0.003 167 0.509 0.004 168 169 170

Rwanda 0.429 Benin Gambia Sudan Cte 0.427 0.420 0.408 0.400

0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001

143

Kenya So Tom and Prncipe

144

(1)

0.509

0.003

145

Pakistan Banglades h TimorLeste

0.504

0.001 171

d'Ivoire Malawi 0.400 0.398 0.376 0.005 0.004 0.012 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.002

146

0.500

0.004 172 Afghanistan Zimbabwe

147 148 149

(9)

0.495

0.004 0.004 0.004

173 174 175 176

Angola 0.486 0.483

Ethiopia 0.363 Mali 0.359

Myanmar

150

(1)

Cameroon

0.482

0.003 177

Guinea0.353 Bissau Eritrea Guinea Central African Republic Sierra Leone Burkina Faso
(1) (1)

0.349 0.344

151

(2)

Madagasca 0.480 r 0.466

0.001

178

152

(1)

Tanzania Papua

0.005

179

0.343

0.004

153

(1)

New Guinea

0.466

0.004

180

0.336

0.002

154 155 156 157 158 159

(1) (1) (9) (1)

Yemen 0.462 0.459

0.002 0.002 0.005 0.003

181 182 183

0.331 0.329 0.328

0.002 0.004 0.002

Senegal

Liberia Chad

Nigeria 0.459 Nepal Haiti 0.458 0.454 0.453

184 0.005 185 0.002 186

Mozambiqu 0.322 e Burundi 0.316 Niger 0.295

0.005

0.003 0.002

Mauritania

160

Lesotho

0.450

0.004 187 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.286 0.013

161

Uganda

0.446

0.004

162 163

Togo Comoros
(1)

0.435 0.433

0.002 0.002

164

Zambia

0.430

0.005

165

(1)

Djibouti

0.430

0.003

List of countries by continent

Africa

10 highest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

High human development 1 2 3 4 Seychelles Libya Mauritius Tunisia Medium human development 5 6 7 8 9 10 Algeria Gabon Egypt Botswana Namibia South Africa 0.698 0.674 0.644 0.633 0.625 0.619 0.773 0.760 0.728 0.698 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1

Low human development Democratic Republic of the Congo Niger Burundi Mozambique Chad Liberia Burkina Faso Sierra Leone Central African Republic Guinea 0.286

0.295 0.316 0.322 0.328 0.329 0.331 0.336 0.343 0.344

Americas

10 highest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development 1 2 3 4 5 United States Canada Chile Argentina Barbados High human development 6 7 8 9 10 Uruguay Cuba Bahamas Mexico Panama 0.783 0.776 0.771 0.770 0.768 0.910 0.908 0.805 0.797 0.793 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1

Low human development Haiti Medium human development Guatemala Nicaragua Honduras Guyana Bolivia Paraguay El Salvador Suriname Dominican Republic 0.574 0.589 0.625 0.633 0.663 0.665 0.674 0.680 0.689 0.454

Asia and Oceania

10 highest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development 1 2 Australia New Zealand 0.929 0.908 1

Low human development Afghanistan 0.398

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Japan Hong Kong South Korea Israel Singapore United Arab Emirates Brunei Bahrain

0.901 0.898 0.897 0.888 0.866 0.846 0.838 0.806

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Nepal Yemen Papua New Guinea Myanmar Timor-Leste Bangladesh Pakistan Solomon Islands Medium human development

0.458 0.462 0.466 0.483 0.495 0.500 0.504 0.510

10 Europe

Bhutan

0.522

10 highest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Norway Netherlands Ireland Liechtenstein Germany Sweden Switzerland Iceland 0.943 0.910 0.908 0.905 0.905 0.904 0.903 0.898 2 3 4 5 6 7 1

Medium human development Moldova High human development Turkey Armenia Macedonia Ukraine Azerbaijan Georgia 0.699 0.716 0.728 0.729 0.731 0.733 0.649

9 10

Denmark Belgium

0.895 0.886

8 9 10

Bosnia and Herzegovina Albania Kazakhstan

0.733 0.739 0.745

List of countries by non-continental region

Arab League member states

Average of all members: 0.630 10 highest HDIs

HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development 1 2 3 United Arab Emirates Qatar Bahrain High human development 4 5 6 7 8 9 Saudi Arabia Kuwait Libya Lebanon Oman Tunisia Medium human development 10 Jordan 0.698 0.770 0.760 0.760 0.739 0.705 0.698 6 7 8 9 10 0.846 0.831 0.806 1 2 3 4 5

Low human development Sudan Djibouti Comoros Mauritania Yemen Medium human development Iraq Morocco Syria Palestinian territories Egypt 0.573 0.582 0.632 0.641 0.644 0.408 0.430 0.433 0.453 0.462

European Union

Average of all members: 0.856 10 highest HDIs

HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Netherlands Ireland Germany Sweden Denmark Belgium Austria France Slovenia Finland 0.910 0.908 0.905 0.904 0.895 0.886 0.885 0.884 0.884 0.882 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 East Asia and the Pacific 1 2

High human development Bulgaria Romania 0.771 0.781

Very high human development Latvia Portugal Lithuania Poland Hungary Malta Slovakia Estonia 0.805 0.809 0.810 0.813 0.816 0.832 0.834 0.835

10 highest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development

Low human development

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Australia New Zealand Japan Hong Kong South Korea Singapore Brunei High human development

0.929 0.908 0.901 0.898 0.897 0.866 0.838

1 2 3 4 5

Nepal Papua New Guinea Myanmar East Timor Solomon Islands Medium human development

0.458 0.466 0.483 0.495 0.510

6 7

Bhutan Cambodia Laos Vietnam Vanuatu

0.522 0.523 0.524 0.593 0.617

8 9 10

Palau Malaysia Tonga

0.782 0.761 0.704

8 9 10

Latin America

10 highest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development 1 2 Chile Argentina 0.805 0.797 2 3 4 5 6 1

Low human development Haiti 0.454

Medium human development Guatemala Nicaragua Honduras Bolivia Paraguay 0.574 0.589 0.625 0.663 0.665

High human development 3 4 5 6 Uruguay Cuba Mexico Panama 0.783 0.776 0.770 0.768

7 8 9 10

Costa Rica Venezuela Peru Ecuador

0.744 0.735 0.725 0.720

7 8

El Salvador Dominican Republic High human development

0.674 0.689

12 11

Colombia Brazil

0.710 0.718

Middle East and North Africa

10 highest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

10 lowest HDIs
HDI Rank Country
New 2011 estimates for 2011

Very high human development 1 2 3 4 5 Israel United Arab Emirates Cyprus Qatar Bahrain High human development 6 7 8 9 10 Saudi Arabia Kuwait Libya Lebanon Iran 0.770 0.760 0.760 0.739 0.707 0.888 0.846 0.840 0.831 0.806 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2

Low human development Sudan Yemen Medium human development Iraq Morocco Syria Palestinian territories Egypt Algeria Jordan Tunisia 0.573 0.582 0.632 0.641 0.644 0.698 0.698 0.698 0.408 0.462

HDI by regions & groups

Region or Group

2011 2011 estimates estimates for 2011 for 2010 HDI[4] HDI[4]

Very high human development Very High Human Development OECD 0.889 0.873 High human development Europe and Central Asia High Human Development 0.751 0.741 0.748 0.739 0.728 0.888 0.871

Latin America and the Caribbean 0.731 Medium human development World East Asia and the Pacific Arab states Small Island Developing States Medium Human Development South Asia 0.682 0.671 0.641 0.640 0.630 0.548 Low human development Sub-Saharan Africa Low Human Development Least Developed Countries 0.463 0.456 0.439

0.679 0.666 0.639 0.638 0.625 0.545

0.460 0.453 0.435

Countries missing from latest report

UN member states (latest UNDP data) Year

Publicatio Data n

Non-UN members (not calculated by the UNDP) Year

Publicatio Data n

Country HDI

Ran k

Source

Country or Ran Sourc HDI Territory k e

Very high human development Very high human development countries on list 0.94 N/A N/A without HDI Monaco 6 reported[citatio
n needed] [5]

1997

1998

N/A

Puerto 0.94 N/A 2 Rico

[12]

2008 countries on list San 0.94 N/A N/A without HDI 4 Marino reported[citatio
n needed] [6]

200 0.92 24 5 Martinique 9

N/A

[13]

1997

1998

0.92 N/A Greenland 7

[14]

2008 Medium human development 199 North 5 Korea 0.76 75 6

[8] [7]

200 0.91 Guadeloup 28 5 2 e 200 7 Macau 0.94 23 4

[13]

1998

2010

[15]

1998

N/A Nauru

countries on list 0.66 N/A without HDI 3 reported[citatio

n needed]

2011

201 Republic of 0.88 22 1 China 2 (Taiwan) High human development

[nb 2]

1998

N/A Tuvalu

countries on list 0.58 N/A without HDI 3 reported[citatio

n needed]

[9]

2010

201 0 Kosovo* 200 New 5 Caledonia 200 4 Runion

0.70 N/A 0 0.87 34 8 0.87 35 0

[17]

2008

[13]

1998

countries on list 0.56 N/A Marshal N/A without HDI 3 l Islands reported[citatio
n needed]

[10]

2007

[13][18]

2008

200 French 0.86 42 5 Polynesia 4 200 French 0.86 43 5 Guiana 2

[13]

Low human development

2008

[13]

2001

200 0.28 161 1 Somalia 4 Other

N/A South

[11][nb 1]

calculated by the UNDP

N/A

N/A

N/A

[citation needed]

Sudan

See also

List of countries by future Human Development Index projections of the United Nations American Human Development Project Happy Planet Index List of African countries by Human Development Index List of Argentine provinces by Human Development Index List of Australian states and territories by HDI List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index List of Chilean regions by Human Development Index List of Chinese administrative divisions by Human Development Index List of countries by Human Development Index/Former reports List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index List of Indonesian provinces by HDI List of Mexican states by Human Development Index List of Pakistani Districts by Human Development Index List of Philippine provinces by Human Development Index List of Russian federal subjects by HDI List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index List of Thailand provinces by Human Development Index List of U.S. states by HDI List of Venezuelan states by human development index Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe statistics Satisfaction with Life Index

Notes
1. ^ Somalia's last inclusion in the HDI ranking was in the 1996 report (1993 data). 2. ^ The UN does not recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a sovereign state. The HDI report does not include Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China when calculating China's figures (see [1]). The ROC's government calculated its HDI to be 0.868, based on 2010 new methodology of UNDP for calculating 2010 HDIs.[16]

References
1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag "Human Development Report 2011 Human development statistical annex". HDRO (Human Development Report Office United Nations Development Programme. pp. 127130. Retrieved 2 November 2011.

2. ^ "History of the Human Development Report". United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved 26 March 2009. 3. ^ "The Human Development concept". UNDP. 2010. Retrieved 29 July 2011. 4. ^ a b "2011 Human Development Report". United Nations Development Programme. p. 151. Retrieved 2 November 2011. 5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states 6. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states 7. ^ "The State of Human Development" (PDF). United Nations Development Programme. 1998. Retrieved 26 March 2009. 8. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states 9. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states 10. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states 11. ^ "Human Development Report: Somalia 2001" (PDF). 2001. p. 198. Retrieved 26 March 2009.[dead link] 12. ^ "Puerto Rico (United States)". United Nations Environment Programme. 2 March 1998. Retrieved 26 March 2009.. Note: Appears to be simply the United States's HDI published on the 1997 report[citation needed]. 13. ^ a b c d e f "Les dfis de la croissance caldonienne, on page 13" (in French) (PDF). CEROM INSEE. Retrieved 2008-12-10. 14. ^ "Greenland (Denmark)". United Nations Environment Programme. 2 March 1998. Retrieved 26 March 2009.. Note: Appears to be simply Denmark's HDI published on the 1997 report[citation needed]. 15. ^ The UN did not calculate the HDI of Macau. The government of Macau calculates its own HDI. If it were included in the UN's HDI figures as of 2007, Macau would rank 23rd or 24th (tying either Singapore or Hong Kong). "Macao in Figures 2010". Statistics and Census Service, Macau SAR. 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-01. 16. ^ "2010 (HDI)" (in Chinese) (pdf). Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C.. 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-02. 17. ^ "Human Development Report - Kosovo 2010". UNDP. 2010. p. 100. Retrieved 2011-11-26. 18. ^ "LIndice de Dveloppement Humain : Une valuation pour la runion" (in French) (PDF). Laboratoire dEconomie Applique au Dveloppement (LEAD) Universit du Sud Toulon-Var. Retrieved 2008-12-10.[dead link]

External links

Human Development Report 2011 Archive of Previous global reports. HDI 2011 Index (the first column). Data challenges in estimating the HDI: The cases of Cuba, Palau and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

List of Indonesian provinces by HDI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search List of Indonesian provinces by HDI is in order of the HDI of Indonesian provinces. The figures come from the 2009 Indonesia Human Development Report, published by Badan Pusat Statistik of Indonesia. Comparable Country HDI (2009 data)
[1]

(Adjusted to 2010 UNDP Data) High human development 1 Central Java 0.813 Macedonia 2 Jakarta 0.801 Mauritius Medium human development 3 Riau 0.791 Dominican Republic 4 Yogyakarta 0.777 Thailand 5 East Kalimantan 0.769 Jordan 6 North Sulawesi 0.765 Tonga 7 Central Kalimantan 0.763 Tonga 0.759 0.600 Indonesia 8 Riau Islands 0.748 El Salvador 9 West Sumatra 0.747 El Salvador 10 South Sumatra 0.736 Turkmenistan 11 Bangka Belitung 0.735 Turkmenistan 12 Bengkulu 0.729 Bolivia 13 Jambi 0.728 Bolivia 14 North Sumatra 0.725 Vietnam 15 West Java 0.719 Uzbekistan 16 Bali 0.715 Uzbekistan 17 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam 0.713 Kyrgyzstan 18 East Java 0.710 Kyrgyzstan 19 Maluku 0.709 Kyrgyzstan 20 South Sulawesi 0.709 Kyrgyzstan 21 Lampung 0.709 Kyrgyzstan 22 Central Sulawesi 0.707 Cape Verde 23 Banten 0.704 Guatemala 24 West Kalimantan 0.702 Egypt 25 South East Sulawesi 0.701 Egypt 26 South Kalimantan 0.700 Tajikistan 27 West Sulawesi 0.696 Tajikistan

Comparable Country HDI (2009 data)[1] 28 Gorontalo 29 North Maluku 30 West Papua 31 East Nusa Tenggara 32 West Nusa Tenggara 33 Papua 0.696 0.696 0.685 0.683 0.656 0.655 (Adjusted to 2010 UNDP Data) Nicaragua Nicaragua South Africa South Africa Morocco Morocco

Education Index
Comparable Country EI (2009 data)[2] (Adjusted to 2010 UNDP Data) High human development 1 Yogyakarta 0.813 Brunei 2 Central Java 0.796 Turkey Medium human development 3 Jakarta 0.766 Thailand 4 Riau 0.765 Thailand 5 North Sulawesi 0.751 Belize 6 North Sulawesi 0.750 Belize 7 Central Kalimantan 0.743 Samoa 0.717 0.600 Indonesia 8 Riau Islands 0.738 Mauritius 9 West Sumatra 0.734 Mauritius 10 South Sumatra 0.726 Gabon 11 Bangka Belitung 0.725 12 East Java 0.725 13 West Java 0.724 14 North Sumatra 0.721 15 Jambi 0.716 16 Bali 0.715 17 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam 0.713 18 Lampung 0.710 19 Maluku 0.709 20 South Sulawesi 0.709 21 Bengkulu 0.709 22 Central Sulawesi 0.707 23 Banten 0.700 Gabon Syria Syria Honduras Maldives Kyrgyzstan Sao Tome and Principe Sao Tome and Principe So Tom and Prncipe Sao Tome and Principe Sao Tome and Principe South Africa Syria

Comparable Country EI (2009 data)[2] 24 Gorontalo 25 South East Sulawesi 26 South Kalimantan 27 West Sulawesi 28 West Kalimantan 29 North Maluku 30 West Papua 31 East Nusa Tenggara 32 West Nusa Tenggara 33 Papua 0.697 0.695 0.693 0.691 0.687 0.686 0.685 0.666 0.646 0.645 (Adjusted to 2010 UNDP Data) Tajikistan Tajikistan Tajikistan Tajikistan Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Yemen India India

Expectancy Index
Comparable Country LE (2009 data) 1 Central Java 79.1 2 Jakarta 78.6 3 North Sulawesi 77.4 4 Riau 76.5 5 Yogyakarta 76.1 6 East Kalimantan 75.7 7 Central Kalimantan 75.3 71.8 Indonesia 8 South Sumatra 71.8 9 West Java 71.8 10 Riau Islands 70.6 11 Bangka Belitung 70.5 12 East Java 70.5 13 West Sumatra 70.4 14 North Sumatra 70.4 15 Jambi 70.0 16 Bali 70.0 17 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam 70.0 18 Lampung 69.8 19 Maluku 69.8 20 South Sulawesi 69.8 21 North Maluku 69.8
[3]

(Adjusted to 2010 UNDP Data) Belgium Ireland Kuwait Czech Republic Mexico Belize Argentina Indonesia Indonesia Honduras Honduras Honduras Honduras Honduras Vanuatu Vanuatu Vanuatu Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago

Comparable Country LE (2009 data)[3] 22 Central Sulawesi 23 Banten 24 Gorontalo 25 South East Sulawesi 26 South Kalimantan 27 West Sulawesi 28 West Kalimantan 29 Bengkulu 30 West Papua 31 East Nusa Tenggara 32 Papua 33 West Nusa Tenggara 65.5 65.5 65.5 65.5 65.5 65.5 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.8 62.1 (Adjusted to 2010 UNDP Data) So Tom and Prncipe So Tom and Prncipe So Tom and Prncipe So Tom and Prncipe So Tom and Prncipe So Tom and Prncipe India India India India India Myanmar