September 2009

Teacher Strategies to Help Fourth-Graders 

Having Difficulty in Reading: An International 

Perspective

Statistics

in Brief

Introduction

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), a study conducted 

by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 

(IEA), assesses the reading achievement of fourth-graders. Most recently, PIRLS 

2006 analyzed nationally representative samples of fourth-graders in the United 

States and 44 other jurisdictions.1

 While scores on this assessment offer insight 

into how U.S. students compare to their international counterparts in reading, 

it is also useful to understand the context in which students learn and the 

current practices used in classroom instruction. To gain a better understanding 

of such contextual features, PIRLS also collects background information from 

students, teachers, and principals on a variety of topics. 

This Statistics in Brief focuses on one particular aspect of reading instruction 

within the participating PIRLS 2006 jurisdictions; it attempts to describe 

international patterns and variation in the strategies reported by teachers to 

help fourth-grade students having difficulty in reading. This report uses data 

collected from the PIRLS 2006 teacher background questionnaire. 

Teachers were asked, “What do you usually do if a student begins to fall 

behind in reading?” Teachers could respond “yes” or “no” to one or more 

of the following: (a) I wait to see if performance improves with maturation; 

(b) I spend more time working on reading individually with that student; 

(c) I have other students work on reading with the student having difficulty; 

(d) I have the student work in the regular classroom with a teacher-aide; 

(e) I have the student work in the regular classroom with a reading specialist; 

(f) I have the student work in a remedial reading classroom with a reading 

specialist; (g) I assign homework to help the student catch up; or (h) I ask the 

parents to help the student with reading. 

Findings

This brief presents information regarding these eight strategies used by fourthgrade teachers to help struggling readers in two groups: (1) out-of-school 

support strategies if they are generally applied outside the school setting, and 

1

 The assessment is open to countries as well as subnational entities such as Hong Kong Special Administrative 

Region (SAR), some individual Canadian provinces, and divisions of countries such as Belgium and the 

United Kingdom. In this report, participating countries and subnational entities are both referred to as 

“jurisdictions.”

Authors

Anindita Sen

Education Statistics Services 

Institute – American Institutes for Research

Stephanie Burns

Education Statistics Services 

Institute – Child Trends

David C. Miller

Education Statistics Services 

Institute – American Institutes for Research

For more information, 

contact Lisa Hudson, 

National Center for 

Education Statistics, 

(202) 502-7358, 

lisa.hudson@ed.gov

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2009–013

Contents

Introduction....................1

Findings ..........................1

Summary.........................7

Technical Notes...............8

References.....................11

Appendix A: Standard 

Error Table ...............13
2 NCES 2009-013

26–50 percent, 51–75 percent, 76–90 percent, and 

then 91–100 percent). 

To address the second objective, international 

patterns in strategy choice are recognized by comparing all eight strategies within each jurisdiction 

and identifying those that received the highest 

and lowest percentages of reported use. Strategies 

identified as the “single most commonly cited” 

had a higher percentage than all other strategies 

within a given jurisdiction. However, in many 

cases, the strategy associated with the highest 

observed percentage did not measurably differ 

from percentages reported for other strategies. For 

instance, in Singapore, percentages for three of the 

eight strategies did not measurably differ from each 

other but were higher than those for all other five 

strategies. Therefore, these strategies are referred 

to as “among the most commonly cited.”

Note that analyses of the most and least commonly 

cited strategies compare percentages for each 

strategy within jurisdictions but do not compare 

percentages across jurisdictions. As such, one 

jurisdiction may report a strategy as among its 

most commonly cited while another jurisdiction 

does not; however, the reported percentage in 

the latter may be higher or not different from the 

reported percentage in the former. 

Out-of-school support strategies

Asking parents to help

Across all 45 jurisdictions, the percentage of fourthgraders whose teachers cited asking the parents 

to help the student with reading ranged from 82 

percent in Singapore to 100 percent in Denmark 

(table 1). Thirty-nine of these jurisdictions reported 

percentages between 91 and 100 percent, including 

the United States (97 percent). 

Asking the parents to help the student with reading 

was among the most commonly cited strategies in 

44 of the 45 jurisdictions (the exception being Hong 

Kong SAR); in 19 of these jurisdictions (including 

the United States), it was the single most commonly 

cited. None of the 45 jurisdictions reported asking 

the parents to help the student with reading as 

among its least common strategies. 

(2) school support strategies if they are primarily 

applied within the school setting. 

School-support strategies to help struggling readers 

often require active school staff involvement such as 

the use of reading specialists either in the remedial 

or regular classroom setting. Readers should be 

aware that PIRLS summaries based on jurisdiction 

reports reveal that reading specialists vary in 

terms of the specific details of their responsibilities 

across jurisdictions (Kennedy et al. 2007). For 

instance, reading specialists in the United States are 

mostly involved at the individual classroom level. 

They support classroom teachers by providing 

materials and ideas, and assisting in diagnosis and 

assessment. They may also work with individual 

students or small groups of students who are 

having difficulty. In contrast, reading specialists 

in Denmark (called reading consultants), besides 

acting as a resource for teachers, also play a key 

role in developing the overall reading and literacy 

strategy within entire school districts, and in some 

cases, monitoring school reading levels annually. 

However, even though their scope of work varied, 

in most of the jurisdictions, reading specialists 

are generally regarded as a source for specialized 

support to teachers in reading instruction. In 

contrast, teacher-aides provide less specialized 

assistance and may support teachers in more than 

one subject area.

This brief uses data from the PIRLS 2006 teacher 

background questionnaire to determine strategy 

use within jurisdictions (i.e., the percentage of 

fourth-graders whose teachers indicated that they 

use each strategy within each jurisdiction), and 

international patterns or variation in strategy 

choice made across jurisdictions (i.e., whether 

there are certain strategies that tend to be the most 

(or least) commonly used for all 45 jurisdictions).

To address the first objective, strategy use at the 

jurisdiction level is measured by the percentage of 

fourth-graders whose teachers indicated that they 

use a specific strategy when attempting to help 

students falling behind in reading. In this brief, 

strategy use is profiled both in terms of the range 

of percentages across all 45 jurisdictions as well as 

the number of jurisdictions that fell within specific 

percentage cutpoints (0–10 percent, 11–25 percent, 
NCES 2009-013 3

among the least commonly cited strategies in nine 

jurisdictions. 

School-support strategies

Spend more time working with the 

student individually

The percentage of fourth-graders whose teachers 

cited spending more time working with the 

student individually ranged from 70 percent in 

the Canadian province of Quebec to 99 percent in 

Poland. Eighteen jurisdictions reported percentages 

between 91 and 100 percent, and 24 jurisdictions, 

including the United States (89 percent), reported 

percentages between 76 and 90 percent. 

Spending more time working with the student 

individually was among the most commonly cited 

strategies in 20 jurisdictions. As in the case of 

asking parents to help, none of the 45 jurisdictions 

reported spending more time working with the 

student individually as among its least common 

strategies.

Have other students work with the 

student having difficulty in reading

The percentage of fourth-graders whose teachers 

cited having other students work with the student 

having difficulty in reading ranged from 17 percent 

in Iceland to 97 percent in the Islamic Republic 

of Iran. Thirty-seven jurisdictions reported 

percentages between 51 and 100 percent. Of these, 

Chinese Taipei and the Islamic Republic of Iran 

reported percentages between 91 and 100 percent; 

15 jurisdictions reported percentages between 76 

and 90 percent, including the United States (80 

percent); and 20 jurisdictions reported percentages 

between 51 and 75 percent. Eight jurisdictions 

reported percentages between 0 and 50 percent. 

Of these, 6 jurisdictions (Denmark, Luxembourg, 

Poland, Scotland, Spain, and Sweden) reported 

percentages between 26 and 50 percent, and 

Iceland and Norway reported percentages between 

11 and 25 percent.

Having other students work with the student 

having difficulty in reading was among the most 

commonly cited strategies in Chinese Taipei, the 

Islamic Republic of Iran, Singapore, and Trinidad 

Assigning homework

The percentage of fourth-graders whose teachers 

cited assigning homework to help the student catch 

up ranged from 23 percent in France to 99 percent 

in Georgia. Thirty-two jurisdictions reported 

percentages between 51 and 100 percent. Of these, 

7 jurisdictions (Bulgaria, Georgia, Indonesia, 

Macedonia, Morocco, the Russian Federation, and 

South Africa) reported percentages between 91 and 

100 percent; 11 jurisdictions reported percentages 

between 76 and 90 percent; and 14 jurisdictions 

reported percentages between 51 and 75 percent. 

The United States (45 percent) was among the 

13 jurisdictions with percentages between 0 and 

50 percent (12 jurisdictions reported percentages 

between 26 and 50 percent, and France reported a 

percentage between 11 and 25 percent).

Seven jurisdictions reported this strategy as among 

their most commonly cited; these included Bulgaria, 

Georgia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Macedonia, Morocco, 

and Romania. England and Denmark reported this 

strategy as among their least commonly cited. 

Waiting for maturation

The percentage of fourth-graders whose teachers 

cited waiting to see if the student’s reading 

performance improved with maturation ranged 

from 11 percent in Slovenia to 93 percent in 

Hong Kong SAR. Eleven jurisdictions reported 

percentages between 51 and 100 percent. Of these, 

Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong SAR, and Latvia 

reported percentages between 91 and 100 percent; 

Qatar reported a percentage between 76 and 90 

percent; and 7 jurisdictions (Belgium (French), the 

Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco, Macedonia, the 

Russian Federation, Singapore, and South Africa) 

reported percentages between 51 and 75 percent. 

The United States (32 percent) was among the 

34 jurisdictions with percentages between 0 and 

50 percent (22 jurisdictions reported percentages 

between 26 and 50 percent, and 12 jurisdictions 

reported percentages between 11 and 25 percent).

This strategy was the single most commonly 

cited strategy in Hong Kong SAR (93 percent) 

and among the most commonly cited in Chinese 

Taipei (91 percent). Waiting to see if the student’s 

performance improves with maturation, was 
4 NCES 2009-013

Table 1. Percentage of fourth-graders with teachers who cited using various strategies to help students falling behind in reading, by strategy 

and jurisdiction: 2006 

Out-of-school-support strategies

Ask parents to help 

student with reading

Assign homework to help 

student catch up

Wait to see if performance 

improves with maturation

Jurisdiction Percent Jurisdiction Percent Jurisdiction Percent

International average1 95  International average1 67 International average1 42

Denmark 100  Georgia 99  Hong Kong SAR4 93 

Sweden 99  Bulgaria 97  Chinese Taipei 91 

Norway2 99  Indonesia 96  Latvia 91

Slovenia 99  Macedonia 95  Qatar 85

Latvia 99  Russian Federation 94 Iran, Islamic Republic of 70

Austria 99  Morocco 94  Russian Federation 65

Moldova 99  South Africa 91 Morocco 55

England 99  Romania 90  Macedonia 54

Russian Federation 99  Iran, Islamic Republic of 90 Belgium (French) 53

Poland 99  Qatar 89 Singapore 52

Spain 98  Moldova 84 South Africa 51

Netherlands3 98  Latvia 80 Georgia 50

Germany 98  Spain 79 Lithuania 49

Slovak Republic 98  Hungary 79 Italy 48

Georgia 98  Trinidad and Tobago 79 Austria 45

Lithuania 98  Sweden 79 Canada, Quebec 44

Canada, Alberta 98  Kuwait 78  Indonesia 43

Iceland 98  Iceland 77 Luxembourg 43

Hungary 97  Lithuania 75 Belgium (Flemish)3 43

South Africa 97  Chinese Taipei 73 France 41

Qatar 97  Italy 72 Moldova 39

United States3 97  Austria 69 Bulgaria 37

Iran, Islamic Republic of 97  Scotland3 68 Romania 36

Bulgaria 97  Germany 63 Canada, British Columbia 36 

Canada, Quebec 97  Hong Kong SAR4 61 England 34 

Canada, British Columbia 96  Canada, Ontario 56 Hungary 33

Canada, Nova Scotia 96  Netherlands3 55 Denmark 32 

Scotland3 96  Poland 55 United States3 32

Indonesia 95  Slovenia 54 Canada, Alberta 31

Trinidad and Tobago 94  Canada, Alberta 54 Sweden 30

Canada, Ontario 94  Israel 53 Kuwait 27 

Macedonia 94  Canada, Nova Scotia 52 Canada, Nova Scotia 27 

Romania 93  Singapore 49 Iceland 27

Belgium (French) 93  Luxembourg 48 Spain 25

New Zealand 93  New Zealand 47 Germany 25

Italy 93  United States3 45 Trinidad and Tobago 25

Chinese Taipei 93  Belgium (Flemish)3 44 Slovak Republic 24

Belgium (Flemish)3 91  Canada, British Columbia 40 Norway2 24

Israel 91  England 39  Canada, Ontario 23 

Morocco 89  Canada, Quebec 38 New Zealand 19

Luxembourg 86  Belgium (French) 37 Israel 19 

France 84  Norway2 31 Netherlands3 18

Hong Kong SAR4 83 Denmark 31  Scotland3 17 

Kuwait 83  Slovak Republic 29 Poland 14

Singapore 82  France 23 Slovenia 11 

See notes at end of table.
NCES 2009-013 5

Table 1. Percentage of fourth-graders with teachers who cited using various strategies to help students falling behind in reading, by 

strategy and jurisdiction: 2006—Continued 

School-support strategies

Spend more time working with 

student individually

Have other students work with 

student having difficulty

Have student work in the regular 

classroom with a teacher-aide

Jurisdiction Percent Jurisdiction Percent Jurisdiction Percent

International average1 88 International average1 64 International average1 23

Poland 99 p Iran, Islamic Republic of 97 p England 72

Hungary 98 p Chinese Taipei 92 p Scotland3 67

Bulgaria 98 p Trinidad and Tobago 89 p Israel 57

Lithuania 98 p South Africa 86 Norway2 56

Macedonia 97 p Singapore 84 p Canada, Alberta 53

Slovenia 97 Indonesia 83 New Zealand 50

Norway2 96 Italy 83 Iceland 50

Romania 96 p Qatar 83 Canada, British Columbia 47

Georgia 96 New Zealand 82 Iran, Islamic Republic of 45

Slovak Republic 95 p Netherlands3 82 Canada, Nova Scotia 40

Canada, Nova Scotia 95 p United States3 80 Canada, Ontario 36

Canada, Ontario 94 p Moldova 79 Sweden 35

Netherlands3 94 p Morocco 78 Kuwait 35 

New Zealand 94 p Canada, Alberta 77 South Africa 31

Moldova 94 p Belgium (Flemish)3 76 United States3 31

Italy 92 p Canada, Ontario 76 Denmark 30 

Scotland3 92 p Israel 76 Russian Federation 26

Israel 91 p Canada, Quebec 75 Indonesia 25

Canada, Alberta 90 Canada, Nova Scotia 74 Qatar 25

Sweden 90 Georgia 71 Canada, Quebec 24 

Iran, Islamic Republic of 90 Hong Kong SAR4 69 Belgium (French) 23

South Africa 90 Germany 69 Italy 22

Trinidad and Tobago 90 p Russian Federation 67 Georgia 21

Russian Federation 89 Canada, British Columbia 67 Austria 19

Canada, British Columbia 89 Romania 67 Belgium (Flemish)3 19 

United States3 89 Kuwait 63 Luxembourg 17

Spain 87 Austria 61 Spain 16 

Belgium (Flemish)3 87 p France 58 Slovenia 14 

Austria 86 Macedonia 57 Hong Kong SAR4 13

Kuwait 85 p Latvia 57 Netherlands3 13

Morocco 85 Hungary 57 Trinidad and Tobago 12

Chinese Taipei 85 Bulgaria 55 Macedonia 12 

Indonesia 84 Lithuania 55 Chinese Taipei 12 

Denmark 84 Slovenia 54 France 11 

Latvia 83 Slovak Republic 54 Slovak Republic 9 

France 82 p England 53 Lithuania 9

Hong Kong SAR4 82 Belgium (French) 53 Moldova 8 

Qatar 82 Poland 47 Germany 8 

Germany 80 Luxembourg 47 Singapore 6 

Iceland 79 Scotland3 45 Latvia 6  

Singapore 78 p Spain 37 Bulgaria 5

England 78 Denmark 35 Poland 4 

Belgium (French) 73 Sweden 35 Morocco 3 ! 

Luxembourg 73 Norway2 18 Hungary 2 ! 

Canada, Quebec 70 Iceland 17  Romania 1 ! 

See notes at end of table.
6 NCES 2009-013

Table 1. Percentage of fourth-graders with teachers who cited using various strategies to help 

students falling behind in reading, by strategy and jurisdiction: 2006—Continued

School-support strategies

 91–100 percent

 76–90 percent

 51–75 percent

 26–50 percent

 11–25 percent

 0–10 percent

 Single highest percentage reported within 

given jurisdiction across eight strategies. 

 Among highest percentages reported within 

given jurisdiction across eight strategies.

 Single lowest percentage reported within 

given jurisdiction across eight strategies.

 Among lowest percentages reported within 

given jurisdiction across eight strategies.

! Interpret data with caution. Standard error is 

larger than one-third of the estimate.

1

 The international average is the average 

percentage across jurisdictions except for the 

Canadian provinces. 2

 Did not meet guidelines for sample participation 

rates after substitute schools were included.

3

 Met guidelines for sample participation rates 

only after substitute schools were included.

4

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative 

Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

NOTE: Data presented in this table include the 

45 jurisdictions that participated in the Progress 

in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). 

Jurisdictions are ordered by percentage cited for 

each strategy. Standard errors can be found in 

appendix A.

SOURCE: International Association for the 

Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress 

in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 

2006.

Have student work in a remedial 

classroom with a reading specialist

Have student work in the regular 

classroom with a reading specialist

Jurisdiction Percent Jurisdiction Percent

International average1 34 International average1 12 

Iceland 83 Canada, Quebec 46

Denmark 78 Kuwait 45

Netherlands3 75 Spain 29

Sweden 75 Belgium (Flemish)3 29

Spain 72 England 28 

Poland 71 Canada, British Columbia 26 

Belgium (Flemish)3 66 Israel 25 

Canada, Nova Scotia 65 Denmark 23 

Canada, British Columbia 65 Iran, Islamic Republic of 22 

Israel 63 Canada, Nova Scotia 22 

Slovenia 60 Scotland3 17 

Norway2 53 Iceland 17 

Scotland3 51 Sweden 16 

United States3 50 Canada, Alberta 16 

England 50 Slovenia 15 

New Zealand 42 United States3 15 

Canada, Alberta 39 Canada, Ontario 15 

Canada, Ontario 37 France 14 

Canada, Quebec 34  Slovak Republic 14 

Kuwait 33  Indonesia 13 

Germany 33 Poland 13

Lithuania 28 Qatar 12 

Russian Federation 27 New Zealand 11 

Hungary 27 Georgia 11 

Iran, Islamic Republic of 26  South Africa 11 

Chinese Taipei 26 Belgium (French) 10 

France 23 Austria 9 

Austria 22 Norway2 9 

Belgium (French) 20 Chinese Taipei 8 

South Africa 19 Macedonia 7 

Luxembourg 19 Netherlands3 7 

Qatar 19 Latvia 7 

Latvia 17 Singapore 6 

Trinidad and Tobago 15 Russian Federation 5 

Singapore 13 Germany 5 

Macedonia 13  Moldova 5 ! 

Slovak Republic 12  Trinidad and Tobago 5 ! 

Georgia 11  Luxembourg 5 

Indonesia 10  Hong Kong SAR4 4 ! 

Bulgaria 9 Lithuania 4 

Romania 9 Bulgaria 2 ! 

Moldova 7  Hungary 1 ! 

Hong Kong SAR4 7  Romania 1 ! 

Italy 4!  Italy 1 ! 

Morocco 3!  Morocco 1 
NCES 2009-013 7

and Tobago. One jurisdiction, Iceland, reported 

this strategy as among its least commonly cited.

Have student work in the regular 

classroom with a teacher-aide

The percentage of fourth-graders whose teachers 

cited having the student work in the regular classroom with a teacher-aide ranged from 1 percent in 

Romania to 72 percent in England. Five jurisdictions (England, Scotland, Israel, Norway, and the 

Canadian province of Alberta) reported a percentage between 51 and 75 percent. Forty jurisdictions 

reported percentages between 0 and 50 percent. 

Of these, 12 jurisdictions reported percentages 

between 26 and 50 percent, including the United 

States (31 percent); 17 jurisdictions reported 

percentages between 11 and 25 percent; and 11 

jurisdictions reported percentages between 0 and 

10 percent.

None of the 45 jurisdictions reported having the 

student work in the regular classroom with a 

teacher-aide as among its most commonly cited 

strategies. This strategy was among the least 

commonly cited in 18 jurisdictions; of these, it 

was the single least commonly cited in Belgium 

(Flemish), Poland, and Spain.

Have student work in a remedial 

classroom with a reading specialist

The percentage of fourth-graders whose teachers 

cited having the student work in a remedial 

classroom with a reading specialist ranged from 

3 percent in Morocco to 83 percent in Iceland. 

Thirteen jurisdictions reported percentages between 

51 and 90 percent. Of these, Denmark and Iceland 

reported percentages between 76 and 90 percent, 

and 11 jurisdictions reported percentages between 

51 and 75 percent. Thirty-two jurisdictions 

reported percentages between 0 and 50 percent. 

Of these, 13 reported percentages between 26 

and 50 percent, including the United States (50 

percent); 12 reported percentages between 11 and 

25 percent; and 7 jurisdictions (Bulgaria, Hong 

Kong SAR, Indonesia, Italy, Moldova, Morocco, 

and Romania) reported percentages between 0 

and 10 percent. 

None of the 45 jurisdictions reported having 

the student work with a reading specialist in a 

remedial classroom as among its most commonly 

cited strategies. This strategy was among the least 

commonly cited in 11 jurisdictions. 

Have student work in the regular 

classroom with a reading specialist

The percentage of fourth-graders whose teachers 

cited having the student work in the regular 

classroom with a reading specialist ranged from 1 

percent in Italy, Hungary, Morocco, and Romania 

to 46 percent in the Canadian province of Quebec. 

Six jurisdictions (Belgium (Flemish), England, 

Kuwait, Spain, and the Canadian provinces of 

British Columbia and Quebec) reported percentages between 26 and 50 percent; 19 jurisdictions 

reported percentages between 11 and 25 percent, 

including the United States (15 percent); and 20 

jurisdictions reported percentages between 0 and 

10 percent. 

None of the 45 jurisdictions reported having the 

student work with a reading specialist in the regular 

classroom as among its most common strategies. 

This strategy was among the least commonly cited 

in 40 jurisdictions. Fifteen of these jurisdictions 

(including the United States) reported this strategy 

as their single least common.

Comparing the results for working with a reading 

specialist in a remedial classroom versus in the 

regular classroom, the former was among the least 

commonly cited strategies in 11 jurisdictions, while 

the latter was among the least commonly cited in 

40 jurisdictions.

Summary

The PIRLS 2006 questionnaire asked teachers 

whether they use specific strategies when a fourthgrader begins to fall behind in reading. Asking 

the parents to help the student with reading was 

among the most commonly cited strategies in 44 

of the 45 jurisdictions presented (the exception 

being Hong Kong SAR); 39 jurisdictions reported 

percentages between 91 and 100 percent for this 

strategy, including the United States. Spending 

more time working with the student individually 

was among the most commonly cited strategies 

in 20 jurisdictions; 18 jurisdictions reported 

percentages between 91 and 100 percent for this 
8 NCES 2009-013

strategy. None of the 45 jurisdictions reported 

these two strategies as among its least common.

None of the 45 jurisdictions presented reported 

working with a reading specialist (in either a regular 

or remedial classroom) or a teacher-aide as among 

its most commonly cited strategies. Iceland and 

Denmark reported percentages between 76 and 90 

percent for having the student work in a remedial 

classroom with a reading specialist. No other 

jurisdictions reported percentages between 76 and 

100 percent for these three strategies. Comparing 

the results for working with a reading specialist 

in a remedial classroom versus in the regular 

classroom, using a reading specialist in a remedial 

classroom was among the least commonly cited 

strategies in 11 jurisdictions, while using a reading 

specialist in the regular classroom was among the 

least commonly cited in 40 jurisdictions.

Technical Notes 

For complete information on the Progress in 

International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 

methodology, please see PIRLS 2006 Technical 

Report (Martin, Mullis, and Kennedy 2007).

Overview of PIRLS 2006

PIRLS is an assessment of the reading comprehension of students in their 4th year of formal 

schooling in jurisdictions around the world. PIRLS 

is conducted by the International Association for 

the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), 

with national sponsors in each participating jurisdiction. In the United States, PIRLS is sponsored 

by the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES), in the Institute of Education Sciences in 

the U.S. Department of Education. 

PIRLS began in 2001 and takes place every 

5 years. The data for this analysis are from the 

most recent administration in 2006. In this report, 

participating countries and subnational entities 

are both referred to as “jurisdictions.” In 2006, 

forty-five jurisdictions, including the United States, 

participated in PIRLS. In addition to 38 participating countries, this total includes 5 participating 

Canadian provinces and 2 separate samples of 

students from Belgium (Flemish and French).

The PIRLS 2006 instruments were prepared in 

English and translated into 45 languages. Although 

most jurisdictions administered the assessment 

in one language, 16 jurisdictions administered 

the test in more than one language. The United 

States administered the test in just one language: 

English.

Sampling, Response Rates, and Data 

Collection

The PIRLS 2006 international project team set 

sampling and response rate benchmarks to ensure 

international comparability and to ensure precise 

estimates of the main criterion variables for all 

jurisdictions. To further ensure the comparability of 

data across jurisdictions, standardized procedures 

were established for instrument translation, test 

administration, quality assurance, scoring, and 

data entry and cleaning. 

The target population for PIRLS was defined 

by the IEA using the International Standard 

Classification of Education (ISCED), developed 

by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, 

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO 1999). In 

PIRLS 2006, countries were required to sample 

students in the grade that corresponded to the end 

of 4 years of formal schooling, providing that the 

mean age at the time of testing was at least 9.5 

years. As defined by PIRLS, the 1st year of formal 

schooling begins with the 1st year of primary 

school (ISCED97 level 1), which should mark 

the beginning of formal instruction in reading, 

writing, and mathematics. For most jurisdictions, 

the target grade was fourth grade, or its national 

equivalent. One goal of PIRLS was to provide 95 

percent coverage of the target population within 

each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions that excluded more 

than 5 percent of students for any reason are noted 

in the PIRLS 2006 international report (Mullis et 

al. 2007) as having less than full coverage of the 

target population.

Standardized sampling procedures were developed 

by the IEA and disseminated in a school sampling 

manual. Statistics Canada was responsible for 

approving the designs and verifying the samples 

of all participating jurisdictions. The basic sample 

design called for a two-stage stratified cluster 
NCES 2009-013 9

design, with schools selected at the first stage 

and classrooms at the second stage. Schools were 

sampled using a probability proportionate to size 

sampling method. Within each jurisdiction, 150 

schools were selected. Information on the number 

of classrooms containing fourth-grade students, 

and on the size of the classes, was collected from 

participating schools and entered into the withinschool sampling software provided by the IEA. In 

most jurisdictions, one or two classes per school 

were randomly selected using this software. All 

students in sampled classrooms were selected.

IEA also established sample size and response rate 

targets for all jurisdictions. A country could meet 

the IEA sampling requirements, after using substitute schools, by either having a response rate of at 

least 85 percent at both the school and the student 

level, or by having an overall sample participation 

rate (the product of the school participation rate 

and the student participation rate) of at least 75 

percent. The 85-percent response rate target for 

schools included a minimum participation rate 

among “original sample schools” of 50 percent. 

When the original sample was drawn, the schools 

immediately before and immediately after each 

sampled school in the sampling frame were designated as “substitute” schools and were contacted 

if the original sample school refused to participate. 

The response rate target for classrooms was set at 

95 percent, along with the target student response 

rate at 85 percent. In addition, classrooms with 

student participation below 50 percent were 

excluded from the final data. Substitution of 

sampled classrooms was not permitted, and the 

school would be classified as a nonrespondent if 

no other classrooms had been sampled. 

School contacting began in April 2005, approximately 1 year prior to data collection. The 

suggested testing window for PIRLS in the southern 

hemisphere was October through December, 2005, 

and in the northern hemisphere it was March 

through June, 2006. 

Sampling, Response Rates, and Data 

Collection in the United States

The PIRLS sample in the United States was designed 

to be representative of all fourth-grade students in 

the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The 

U.S. sample was designed to yield 180 participating 

schools. The PIRLS school sample was drawn in 

March 2005. The sampling frame was constructed 

using data from the 2002–03 Common Core 

of Data (CCD) and preliminary data from the 

2003–04 Private School Universe Survey (PSS).

Of the 214 original eligible sample schools, 120 

participated (57 percent weighted). An additional 

63 substitute schools were contacted and agreed to 

participate, for a total of 183 schools. The weighted 

response rate, using final adjusted weights, was 86 

percent.2

 The United States met the international 

guidelines for the school response rate, but only 

after using substitute schools.

Of the 256 classrooms sampled, 255 participated, 

or 99 percent. Within these classrooms, 5,442 

students were eligible, and 5,190 completed the 

assessment, for a weighted student response rate 

of 95 percent. The United States met the international guidelines for classroom and student 

response rates.

In addition to having students complete the 

assessment and a questionnaire, PIRLS asked 

teachers and school administrators to complete 

questionnaires. Of the 256 teachers sampled, 249 

completed teacher questionnaires, or 97 percent. 

Among school administrators, 182 of the 183 

questionnaires were completed, for a response rate 

of 99 percent.

The United States was allowed to administer 

PIRLS earlier (on January 23) than the suggested 

testing window of March through June, 2006 to 

accommodate schools that wished to participate 

before state-mandated testing occurred. Many 

U.S. schools also asked to participate after 

completing state tests, so the United States was 

allowed to continue testing through June 9, 2006, 

resulting in a 41⁄2-month test window rather than 

the more typical 1- to 2-month test window. The 

mean score of students completing the assessment 

in January through March was 539.5, which was 

2

 All weighted response rates discussed in this report refer to final 

adjusted weights. Response rates were calculated using the formula 

developed by the IEA for PIRLS. The standard NCES formula for 

computing response rates would result in a lower school response rate 

of approximately 63 percent.
10 NCES 2009-013

not significantly different from the score (541.1) 

of the students completing the assessment in April 

through June.

Exclusions in the PIRLS Sample

Schools that were very small or that were classified 

as special education, vocational, or alternative 

schools (private and public) were excluded from 

the sampling frame. In the United States these 

excluded schools enrolled 3.2 percent of the 

expected number of fourth-grade students. 

Within classrooms, students were excluded from 

participation in PIRLS if they met the exclusion 

criteria established by IEA:

•	 Students with intellectual disabilities.

These are students who were considered, 

in the professional opinion of the school 

principal or other qualified staff members, 

to have an intellectual disability or who had 

been so diagnosed in psychological tests. 

This category included students who were 

emotionally or mentally unable to follow 

the general instructions of the test. It did 

not include students who merely exhibited 

poor academic performance or discipline 

problems.

•	 Students with functional disabilities. These 

are students who had a permanent physical 

disability in such a way that they could not 

perform in the PIRLS testing situation. 

Students with functional disabilities 

who could perform were included in the 

testing.

•	 Non-native-language speakers. These are 

students who could not read or speak 

the language of the test and so could not 

overcome the language barrier of testing. 

Typically, a student who had received less 

than 1 year of instruction in the language 

of the test was excluded, but this definition 

could be adapted in different countries.

In the United States, 2.8 percent of students were 

excluded from PIRLS on the basis of these criteria. 

In keeping with international protocol, no testing 

accommodations were offered to students.

The overall exclusion rate was 5.9 percent in the 

United States, which means that the overall U.S. 

coverage rate was 0.9 percent below the recommended rate of 95 percent. See Mullis et al. (2007) 

for the exclusion rates of all other jurisdictions that 

participated in PIRLS 2006. 

Nonresponse Bias Analysis

NCES standards require a nonresponse bias analysis 

if the school-level response falls below 85 percent 

of the sampled schools as it did for the U.S. PIRLS 

sample. Thus, an analysis of school nonresponse 

was initiated and conducted in two parts. The basis 

for both analyses was the original sample of 214 

eligible schools. In the first analysis, the distribution 

of the 120 responding original sample schools was 

compared with that of the total sample of eligible 

original schools. All original schools in the sample 

that declined to participate in the study were 

treated as nonparticipants regardless of whether 

they were substituted by a replacement school. 

This analysis found that school composition was 

significantly different across the two groups: the 

mean percentage of Asian students in schools in 

the eligible sample was 3.5 percent, while among 

participating original sample schools it was 2.4 

percent; the measure of bias was 1.07.

In the second analysis, the final sample of all 

participating schools (both original and replacement) was compared to the total eligible sample. 

In this analysis, the percentage of Asian students in 

the school was not significantly different between 

the two groups. However, the number of fourthgrade students enrolled in the school was related 

to nonresponse. Schools with fewer students 

enrolled in fourth grade (schools with an average 

of 67 students in the fourth grade) were less likely 

to participate than larger schools (schools with 

an average of 71.2 students in fourth grade); the 

measure of bias was 4.17. It is unclear whether this 

bias has any impact on student achievement scores. 

More detailed information on nonresponse bias 

analysis, including item nonresponse analysis, can 

be found in Green, Herget, and Rosen (2009).

Weighting and Variance Estimation

Sampling weights are necessary for computing 

statistically valid, nationally representative 
NCES 2009-013 11

estimates. Survey weights help adjust for the 

intentional over- or undersampling of certain sectors 

of the population, school or student nonresponse, 

or errors in estimating the size of a school at the 

time of sampling. Survey weighting for the entire 

international PIRLS 2006 sample was carried out 

by Statistics Canada. Because PIRLS used clustered 

sampling, conventional formulas for estimating 

sampling variability that assume simple random 

sampling and hence independence of observations 

are inappropriate. For this reason, PIRLS used a 

jackknife repeated replication method (Johnson 

and Rust 1992) to estimate standard errors that 

capture the sampling variance.

Data Limitations

As with any study, there are limitations to PIRLS 

that researchers should take into consideration. 

Estimates produced using data from PIRLS are 

subject to two types of error: nonsampling errors 

and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors can be 

due to errors made in the collection and processing 

of data. Sampling errors can occur because the 

data were collected from a sample rather than a 

complete census of the population. Readers are 

cautioned that large apparent differences may 

not be measurably different due to large standard 

errors. In addition to sampling errors, researchers 

should also be aware of missing data issues and 

how these issues were addressed.

In PIRLS, background data were not imputed for 

cases with missing data. Item response rates for 

variables presented in this analysis exceeded the 

NCES minimum standard of 85 percent (weighted) 

to report without qualification.

Readers should note additional limitations of the 

PIRLS teacher background questionnaire data 

used in this analysis. First, teachers’ responses 

to questionnaire items are self-reported and may 

not reflect their actual practices. In addition, due 

to varying cultural contexts, teachers asked the 

same question in one jurisdiction may interpret it 

differently than teachers in another jurisdiction. 

The validity of across-jurisdiction comparisons 

cannot be determined from the data presented in 

this brief. 

Two additional limitations arise based on analytic 

decisions specific to this brief. First, student 

achievement data is not included in this report, as 

the report is purely descriptive of teacher strategies 

for helping students who fall behind in reading. 

Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this 

report regarding the relative merits of any given 

strategy. 

Second, all analyses conducted for this report 

are bivariate comparisons of the extent to which 

teachers of fourth-graders reported using various 

strategies. It does not examine more complex 

questions, such as teachers’ use of certain combinations of strategies. These questions can be explored 

using PIRLS data; however, they were beyond the 

scope of this analysis.

Statistical Comparisons

Comparisons made in this report have been tested 

for statistical significance at the .05 level using the 

student’s t statistic to ensure that the differences 

are larger than those that might be expected 

because of sampling variation. For example, in 

the comparison of percentages within the United 

States, the following formula was used to compute 

the t statistic:

where E1

 and E2 are the estimates being compared 

(e.g., percentage of U.S. fourth-graders whose 

teachers indicated that they ask the parents to help 

versus the percentage of U.S. fourth-graders whose 

teachers reported working with students individually when attempting to help students falling behind 

in reading), and se1

 and se2 are the corresponding 

standard errors of these percentages.

References

Green, P.J., Herget, D., and Rosen, J. (2009). 

User’s Guide for the Progress in International 

Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS): 2006 Data 

Files and Database with United States Specific 

Variables (NCES 2009-050). National Center 

for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC.

√ t = 

E1

 - E2

2 2 se1

 + se2
12 NCES 2009-013

Johnson, E.G., and Rust, K.F. (1992). Population 

Inferences and Variance for NAEP Data. Journal 

of Educational Statistics, 17(2): 175–190.

Kennedy, A.M., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., 

and Trong, K.L. (Eds.). (2007). PIRLS 2006 

Encyclopedia: A Guide to Reading Education in 

the Forty PIRLS Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: 

TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, 

Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., and Kennedy, A.M. 

(2007). PIRLS 2006 Technical Report. Chestnut 

Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study 

Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston 

College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.S., Kennedy, A.M., 

and Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International 

Report: IEA’s Progress in International 

Reading Literacy Study in Primary Schools in 

40 Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and 

PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School 

of Education, Boston College.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1999). 

Operational Manual for ISCED-1997. Paris: 

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 

For more information on the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), visit http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls. To order 

additional copies of this Statistics in Brief or other NCES publications, call 1-877-4ED-PUBS or visit http://www.edpubs.org. NCES publications 

are also available on the Internet at http://nces.ed.gov.
NCES 2009-013 13

Table A-1. Standard errors for the percentage of fourth-graders with teachers who cited using various strategies to help students falling 

behind in reading, by strategy and jurisdiction: 2006 

Out-of-school-support strategies

Ask parents to help 

student with reading

Assign homework to help 

student catch up

Wait to see if performance 

improves with maturation

Jurisdiction s.e. Jurisdiction s.e. Jurisdiction s.e.

International average 0.3 International average 0.5 International average 0.5

Denmark 0.5 Georgia 0.6 Hong Kong SAR3 2.5

Sweden 0.5 Bulgaria 1.8 Chinese Taipei 2.4

Norway1 0.5 Indonesia 1.9 Latvia 1.9

Slovenia 0.5 Macedonia 1.9 Qatar 0.2

Latvia 0.6 Russian Federation 1.7 Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.4

Austria 0.6 Morocco 2.1 Russian Federation 3.2

Moldova 0.9 South Africa 1.4 Morocco 4.2

England 0.8 Romania 2.9 Macedonia 3.7

Russian Federation 0.8 Iran, Islamic Republic of 2.3 Belgium (French) 4.0

Poland 0.7 Qatar 0.1 Singapore 2.9

Spain 0.9 Moldova 3.2 South Africa 3.0

Netherlands2 1.2 Latvia 3.2 Georgia 4.1

Germany 1.0 Spain 3.2 Lithuania 3.5

Slovak Republic 0.8 Hungary 3.1 Italy 3.8

Georgia 0.9 Trinidad and Tobago 3.4 Austria 3.7

Lithuania 1.0 Sweden 3.5 Canada, Quebec 4.9

Canada, Alberta 1.2 Kuwait 3.3 Indonesia 3.5

Iceland 0.1 Iceland 0.3 Luxembourg 0.2

Hungary 1.0 Lithuania 3.0 Belgium (Flemish)2 4.0

South Africa 0.8 Chinese Taipei 3.4 France 3.6

Qatar 0.1 Italy 3.6 Moldova 3.7

United States2 1.1 Austria 2.8 Bulgaria 4.1

Iran, Islamic Republic of 1.4 Scotland2 4.0 Romania 3.8

Bulgaria 1.4 Germany 5.1 Canada, British Columbia 3.8

Canada, Quebec 1.0 Hong Kong SAR3 4.0 England 4.0

Canada, British Columbia 1.4 Canada, Ontario 4.7 Hungary 4.3

Canada, Nova Scotia 1.7 Netherlands2 4.4 Denmark 3.6

Scotland2 1.8 Poland 3.8 United States2 3.4

Indonesia 1.9 Slovenia 3.3 Canada, Alberta 3.6

Trinidad and Tobago 2.0 Canada, Alberta 3.3 Sweden 3.3

Canada, Ontario 2.4 Israel 3.6 Kuwait 3.7

Macedonia 2.0 Canada, Nova Scotia 4.4 Canada, Nova Scotia 3.3

Romania 2.6 Singapore 2.9 Iceland 0.4

Belgium (French) 1.9 Luxembourg 0.2 Spain 3.7

New Zealand 1.2 New Zealand 3.1 Germany 3.5

Italy 1.7 United States2 4.3 Trinidad and Tobago 3.0

Chinese Taipei 2.2 Belgium (Flemish)2 3.8 Slovak Republic 3.3

Belgium (Flemish)2 2.1 Canada, British Columbia 4.3 Norway1 3.2

Israel 2.7 England 4.0 Canada, Ontario 4.1

Morocco 2.6 Canada, Quebec 4.5 New Zealand 2.5

Luxembourg 0.1 Belgium (French) 3.9 Israel 3.6

France 2.5 Norway1 3.4 Netherlands2 3.1

Hong Kong SAR3 3.4 Denmark 3.9 Scotland2 3.7

Kuwait 3.1 Slovak Republic 3.3 Poland 3.2

Singapore 2.5 France 3.1 Slovenia 2.1

See notes at end of table.

Appendix A. Standard Error Table
14 NCES 2009-013

Table A-1. Standard errors for the percentage of fourth-graders with teachers who cited using various strategies to help students falling 

behind in reading, by strategy and jurisdiction: 2006—Continued 

School-support strategies

Spend more time working with 

student individually

Have other students work with 

student having difficulty

Have student work in the regular 

classroom with a teacher-aide

Jurisdiction s.e. Jurisdiction s.e. Jurisdiction s.e.

International average 0.4 International average 0.5 International average 0.5

Poland 0.6 Iran, Islamic Republic of 1.1 England 4.3

Hungary 0.9 Chinese Taipei 2.3 Scotland2 4.3

Bulgaria 1.4 Trinidad and Tobago 2.6 Israel 4.4

Lithuania 1.0 South Africa 2.0 Norway1 4.4

Macedonia 1.6 Singapore 2.2 Canada, Alberta 3.5

Slovenia 1.1 Indonesia 3.1 New Zealand 3.2

Norway1 1.2 Italy 3.1 Iceland 0.4

Romania 1.9 Qatar 0.2 Canada, British Columbia 4.1

Georgia 1.5 New Zealand 2.1 Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.3

Slovak Republic 1.4 Netherlands2 3.3 Canada, Nova Scotia 3.5

Canada, Nova Scotia 1.5 United States2 3.3 Canada, Ontario 3.9

Canada, Ontario 1.9 Moldova 3.3 Sweden 4.1

Netherlands2 1.9 Morocco 3.7 Kuwait 4.4

New Zealand 1.4 Canada, Alberta 3.1 South Africa 2.9

Moldova 2.4 Belgium (Flemish)2 3.7 United States2 4.2

Italy 2.2 Canada, Ontario 4.4 Denmark 3.5

Scotland2 1.9 Israel 3.9 Russian Federation 3.4

Israel 2.4 Canada, Quebec 3.8 Indonesia 3.6

Canada, Alberta 2.4 Canada, Nova Scotia 3.4 Qatar 0.2

Sweden 2.5 Georgia 3.5 Canada, Quebec 3.8

Iran, Islamic Republic of 2.5 Hong Kong SAR3 4.6 Belgium (French) 2.8

South Africa 1.6 Germany 3.9 Italy 3.2

Trinidad and Tobago 2.4 Russian Federation 3.0 Georgia 3.3

Russian Federation 2.4 Canada, British Columbia 3.9 Austria 2.4

Canada, British Columbia 2.7 Romania 3.7 Belgium (Flemish)2 3.4

United States2 2.5 Kuwait 3.8 Luxembourg 0.1

Spain 2.8 Austria 3.3 Spain 2.7

Belgium (Flemish)2 2.9 France 3.5 Slovenia 2.0

Austria 2.4 Macedonia 4.3 Hong Kong SAR3 2.8

Kuwait 2.8 Latvia 3.2 Netherlands2 2.4

Morocco 3.3 Hungary 4.1 Trinidad and Tobago 2.7

Chinese Taipei 2.9 Bulgaria 4.6 Macedonia 3.0

Indonesia 2.8 Lithuania 3.6 Chinese Taipei 2.6

Denmark 2.6 Slovenia 3.1 France 2.2

Latvia 3.0 Slovak Republic 3.9 Slovak Republic 2.0

France 2.9 England 4.6 Lithuania 2.0

Hong Kong SAR3 3.1 Belgium (French) 3.5 Moldova 2.4

Qatar 0.2 Poland 4.3 Germany 1.8

Germany 3.3 Luxembourg 0.2 Singapore 1.6

Iceland 0.3 Scotland2 4.7 Latvia 1.3

Singapore 2.3 Spain 3.9 Bulgaria 1.2

England 3.4 Denmark 4.2 Poland 1.2

Belgium (French) 3.3 Sweden 3.4 Morocco 1.4

Luxembourg 0.2 Norway1 4.0 Hungary 1.0

Canada, Quebec 4.0 Iceland 0.3 Romania 0.4

See notes at end of table.
NCES 2009-013 15

Table A-1. Standard errors for the percentage of fourth-graders with teachers who cited 

using various strategies to help students falling behind in reading, by strategy 

and jurisdiction: 2006—Continued

School-support strategies

# Rounds to zero. 1

 Did not meet guidelines for sample participation 

rates after substitute schools were included.

2

 Met guidelines for sample participation rates 

only after substitute schools were included.

3

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative 

Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

SOURCE: International Association for the 

Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress 

in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 

2006.

Have student work in a remedial 

classroom with a reading specialist

Have student work in the regular 

classroom with a reading specialist

Jurisdiction s.e. Jurisdiction s.e.

International average 0.5 International average 0.4

Iceland 0.2 Canada, Quebec 4.6

Denmark 3.2 Kuwait 4.3

Netherlands2 3.7 Spain 4.0

Sweden 3.0 Belgium (Flemish)2 3.3

Spain 3.9 England 4.2

Poland 3.8 Canada, British Columbia 4.0

Belgium (Flemish)2 3.7 Israel 3.9

Canada, Nova Scotia 3.6 Denmark 3.5

Canada, British Columbia 4.3 Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.2

Israel 4.4 Canada, Nova Scotia 3.5

Slovenia 3.3 Scotland2 3.6

Norway1 3.9 Iceland 0.3

Scotland2 4.2 Sweden 3.2

United States2 4.0 Canada, Alberta 2.9

England 4.1 Slovenia 2.3

New Zealand 2.5 United States2 2.8

Canada, Alberta 3.8 Canada, Ontario 3.0

Canada, Ontario 4.5 France 2.5

Canada, Quebec 4.3 Slovak Republic 2.6

Kuwait 4.1 Indonesia 3.0

Germany 3.1 Poland 2.4

Lithuania 3.0 Qatar 0.1

Russian Federation 3.6 New Zealand 1.7

Hungary 3.5 Georgia 2.4

Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.4 South Africa 2.1

Chinese Taipei 3.6 Belgium (French) 2.0

France 3.0 Austria 1.8

Austria 3.1 Norway1 2.1

Belgium (French) 2.8 Chinese Taipei 2.1

South Africa 2.3 Macedonia 2.5

Luxembourg 0.1 Netherlands2 1.9

Qatar 0.2 Latvia 1.7

Latvia 2.9 Singapore 1.5

Trinidad and Tobago 3.1 Russian Federation 1.6

Singapore 2.2 Germany 1.5

Macedonia 3.1 Moldova 1.9

Slovak Republic 2.1 Trinidad and Tobago 2.0

Georgia 2.8 Luxembourg 0.1

Indonesia 2.9 Hong Kong SAR3 1.7

Bulgaria 2.1 Lithuania 1.2

Romania 2.0 Bulgaria 0.7

Moldova 2.2 Hungary 0.8

Hong Kong SAR3 2.0 Romania 0.7

Italy 1.6 Italy 0.8

Morocco 1.3 Morocco #
www.ed.gov ies.ed.gov