Mindsets, attitudes and learning

7. Concentration of growth mindset in schools

So far, this policy paper has focused on growth mindset and its relationship with some individual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions of teacher actions and relations, as well as on their impact. Yet schools are more than collections of individuals; they are social environments where attitudes, expectations and behaviours are shaped by peers and norms (Ryan, 2000[32]; Eccles and Roeser, 2011[33]). Students’ mindsets can be reinforced – or undermined – by the prevailing culture in their classroom and school.

Measuring its concentration is important because growth mindset may have peer and contextual dimensions. Being surrounded by classmates with more positive beliefs about learning can shape classroom dynamics, expectations and engagement. At the system level, concentration also provides insights into equity; if more disadvantaged school communities endorse fixed mindsets to a larger extent, the educational environment itself may reinforce inequities. Finally, it helps clarify whether growth mindset is primarily an individual characteristic or whether it clusters systematically within schools.

Understanding how growth mindset is distributed across schools provides a valuable perspective beyond differences in individual students.

Concentration of growth mindset and performance

The following analyses categorise schools into three groups, depending on their concentration of students reporting a growth mindset: high, low and average. The concentration levels are defined in relative terms within each education system. A high concentration level is defined as a value that is half standard deviation above the average within the student’s country or economy, while a low level corresponds to a value that is half standard deviation below the average. The average concentration level represents the mean value within the country or economy.

This approach is designed to capture within-system distributional patterns rather than enable direct cross-country comparisons of absolute prevalence. Moreover, it is important to interpret the results within their full context, as the overall levels of growth mindset vary substantially between systems — from 31% to 74% of students (Table B.5). Therefore, a “high-concentration” school in one country may not correspond to the same absolute level in another. However, using relative thresholds enables meaningful identification of within-system imbalances for understanding how students’ learning beliefs cluster across schools.

Based on this approach, PISA data show that the growth mindset concentration correlates to mathematics performance. On average across OECD, students in low-concentration schools average 453 points in mathematics, those in average-concentration schools 474, and those in high-concentration schools 490, thus showing a 37 score-point gap between the extremes (Table B.8). This pattern can be observed in most countries/economies.

Likewise, this relationship parallels differences in schools’ socio-economic composition. As discussed above, part of the growth mindset relationship with mathematics performance may be confounded by students’ socio-economic status. A similarity appears here, with more socio-economically advantaged profiles in high-concentration schools (Table B.9). This parallel suggests that concentration is partly shaped by socio-economic composition, but it also suggests that student mindsets are not only personal traits but may also cluster according to school-level contexts.

Figure 13. School concentration of growth mindset

Percentage of students in schools with low/high concentration¹ of those who reported a growth mindset

¹A high concentration is defined as a value that is half standard deviation above the average within the student’s country or economy, while a low level corresponds to a value that is half standard deviation below the average.

Note: Only countries and economies with available data are shown.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the share of students in schools with high concentration of growth mindset.

Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table B.6.

When looking at the distribution of students across schools by the concentration of students reporting a growth mindset, it is important to look at two distinct dimensions. The first one is imbalance: whether more students attend high- rather than low-concentration schools (or vice versa). This will show how skewed the distribution is within education systems. The second is dispersion: how many students are concentrated in the extremes versus in the middle group, showing how polarised systems are. These measures describe different aspects of distribution: imbalance concerns direction, while dispersion concerns spread.

These dimensions provide complementary insights into how equitably growth mindset is distributed across schools within a system. For example, as shown in Figure 13, in Singapore and Slovenia, the two dots for high and low school concentration fully overlap, suggesting that imbalance is minimal, with similar proportions of students in high- and low-concentration schools within each country (Figure 13 and Table B.6). Yet, dispersion differs. In Slovenia, just over half of students sit in the extremes (i.e. the two dots are slightly above 25%) meaning that 50% of students are in the middle group, while in Singapore, more than two-thirds are in the extremes (the two dots are at about 35%) meaning that 30% are in the middle group, the highest polarisation observed (i.e. wide dispersion). Singapore therefore combines balance with wide dispersion, meaning that students are more likely to experience very different environments depending on their school.

Brunei Darussalam shows the largest tilt towards low-concentration schools. Although dispersion is rather small and slightly over half of students are in schools with low and high concentration, about one-third of students are in low-concentration schools, even though overall dispersion is modest. On the opposite end, Montenegro is unusual in that fewer than half of students are in the extremes, with the majority attending average-concentration schools. This represents a more “compressed” distribution where extremes are less common.

Finally, two countries that are in the best comparative position are Austria and the United States*. Both countries present a favourable combination: a relatively large share of students in high-concentration schools (around one-third), fewer in low-concentration schools (under one-quarter), and a comparatively compact dispersion.

These findings highlight that not only the average level of growth mindset matters, but also how it is distributed across schools. Education systems with negative imbalance, where low-mindset schools predominate, risk entrenching inequities, as students in disadvantaged schools may be doubly penalised: fewer positive learning beliefs and weaker academic outcomes. Systems with a positive imbalance, where more students are in high-mindset schools can combine higher prevalence of supportive environments with fewer students left behind. At the same time, systems with wide dispersion (many students in extreme contexts) tend to be more polarised, while those with compact dispersion provide more consistent experiences across schools. The most favourable profile is therefore one of positive imbalance with compact dispersion: more students in growth-oriented schools, and fewer isolated in low-mindset settings.

For policymakers, the concentration of growth mindset across schools is best interpreted as a mirror of broader educational structures. Where learning opportunities and resources are unevenly distributed, beliefs about improvement tend to cluster in the same way. Policies should therefore focus first on addressing structural segregation, reducing social and academic stratification between schools and ensuring that all students have access to effective teaching, supportive climates and meaningful feedback. Within such equitable environments, growth mindset can emerge as both a reflection and reinforcement of students’ opportunities to learn. In this sense, promoting adaptive beliefs is an outcome of inclusive and high-quality learning systems.