Invited to present and discuss "Achieving Equity and Inclusion in Public Education Systems", Beatriz Pont gave a keynote speech at the Education International Global Education Conference, Unite for Quality Education, 27-28 May, Montreal, Canada. Beatriz’s presentation builds on the Equity and Quality in Education and the Education Policy Outlook series.
More information at www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htm
ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...
Achieving Equity and Inclusion in Education: An OECD Perspective
1. ACHIEVING EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN
EDUCATION : AN OECD PERSPECTIVE
Beatriz Pont
OECD Directorate for Education and Skills
Education International
Unite for Quality Education Conference
Montreal, Canada, 26-27 May, 2014
2. Improving equity and reducing school failure is a
policy priority
There is a need for clear policy responses
Countries face challenges in adopting and implementing policies to
improve equity in education
There is increasing evidence that equity and quality can go together
and there are many different policies and strategies to improve equity
All countries are confronted with equity challenges, and they can be of
different types
3. 3
High performing systems
combine equity with quality
Socially equitable
distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-
economic
impact on student
performance
6. Key levers for change and improvement
The Education Policy Outlook : A window into countries’
education systems
7. Key levers for change and improvement
The Education Policy Outlook: A window into countries’
education systems
Is the system
equitable for its
students?
8. Reducing school failure pays off
Education
failure
imposes
high costs
to individuals
and to
society
It limits capacity of
economies to grow and
innovate
Damages social cohesion and
mobility and is expensive:
Higher public health expenditures
Higher welfare, increased criminality
.. and the crisis has brought equity to the forefront
10. The challenge: to reduce dropout rates
% of individuals who have not completed upper secondary education by age group
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Korea
SlovakRepublic
CzechRepublic
Poland
Slovenia
Canada
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
Austria
UnitedStates
Israel
Estonia
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Denmark
Chile
France
Luxembourg
Norway
Belgium
Australia
Netherlands
UnitedKingdom
OECDaverage
NewZealand
Greece
Italy
Iceland
Spain
Portugal
Mexico
Turkey
Percentageofpopulation
25-34 25-64
11. The challenge: to reduce the risk of low achievement
due to personal circumstances (fairness)
Relative risk of scoring below in bottom quarter depending on personal
circumstances, PISA 2012
LowriskHighrisk
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Hungary
NewZealand
France
Israel
Belgium
Germany
Luxembourg
Chile
Denmark
Austria
Portugal
CzechRepublic
Spain
Poland
OECDaverage
Australia
Ireland
Switzerland
Greece
Slovenia
UnitedStates
Netherlands
Japan
Sweden
Italy
Finland
United…
Mexico
Canada
Norway
Turkey
Korea
Iceland
Estonia
RelativeriskofscoringinbottomquarterinPISA
mathematics2012
Students in the bottom quarter of the ESCS index Immigrant students
12. The mathematics gap between immigrant and native students
% of students above baseline level (level 3 or above by immigrant status, PISA 2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HongKong-China
Singapore
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Netherlands
Macao-China
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Belgium
Canada
Austria
Luxembourg
Denmark
France
Ireland
Slovenia
Australia
CzechRepublic
NewZealand
OECDaverage
Iceland
UnitedKingdom
Norway
Spain
Portugal
Latvia
Italy
Sweden
RussianFederation
UnitedStates
Hungary
Israel
Croatia
Greece
Serbia
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Montenegro
Mexico
UnitedArabEmirates
CostaRica
Brazil
Argentina
Jordan
Qatar
Percentageofstudentsabovethebaselinelevel
(Level3orabove)
Non-immigrant students Second-generation students First-generation students
13. Policies to achieve more equitable education
systems and reduce dropout
Invest early and through upper
secondary
Support low
performing
disadvantaged
schools
Eliminate
system level
obstacles to
equity
14. 1) Avoid system level policies that hinder equity
More
equitable
system level
policies
ECEC
Australia/Canad
a/Chile/Mexico
/Nordic/France/
Spain
Comprehensive
education and
postpone
tracking
Nordic/Austria/
Germany
Equivalent upper
secondary
pathways
Nordic/Alberta Manage school
choice to avoid
inequities
Neths/Chile
Make funding
responsive to
needs
Chile/Netherlan
ds/Australia/On
tario
15. Policy options to postpone tracking to upper
secondary
Comprehensive school to upper
secondary
Suppress low-level tracks
Limit selection to specific
subjects or flexible settings
17. Upper secondary pathways:
promote more work-oriented skills
Academic and
vocational tracks
should be
equivalent
to ensure
transferability and
avoid dead ends
VET should
provide high level
generic
skills in
addition to
professional
Guidance and
counselling
services need to
engage more fully
with the
world of
work
+ strategies for those at risk of dropping out
18. Manage school choice
Opt for higher
quality
schools, and might
foster efficiency, spur
innovation and raise quality
overall.
Choice can result in a
greater sorting and
segregation
of students by ability,
income and ethnic
background.
Choice
Equity
19. Make funding more responsive to needs
Take into
consideration
that the
instructional
costs of
disadvantaged
students may be
higher
Targeting
resources to
areas with a
high
concentration of
low performing
disadvantaged
students
20. Policies to achieve more equitable education
systems and reduce dropout
Invest early and through upper
secondary
Support low
performing
disadvantaged
schools
Eliminate
system level
obstacles to
equity
22. Students may have different opportunities
depending on schools they attend
22
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Netherlands
Hungary
Belgium
Luxembourg
Germany
Slovenia
Austria
Israel
Japan
Greece
SlovakRepublic
Italy
Ireland
Korea
Portugal
OECDaverage
CzechRepublic
NewZealand
Chile
UnitedStates
Mexico
UnitedKingdom
Australia
Spain
Turkey
Denmark
Poland
Switzerland
Canada
Iceland
Sweden
Estonia
Finland
Norway
Students in socio-economically disadvantaged schools
Students in socio-economically average schools
Students in socio-economically advantaged schools
Relative risk of scoring in the bottom quarter of the performance distribution, PISA 2012
23. 2) Support low performing disadvantaged schools
Supporting
disadvantaged
schools
General
strategies
IRL/FIN/AUST/
N. ZEAL/GER
Supportive
school
climates/data
H.
PERF./DK/FR
Quality
professionals
AUSTR/NOR
Effective
classroom
strategies
Parental and
community
engagement
MX/NETH
24. Examples of systemic support to disadvantaged
groups/schools
•OFIP targeted support to schools
•2002/03- 2010/11: from 19% to
6% reduction .
Ontario
•Smarter schools national
partnership for disadvantaged
schools
•Aboriginal and torres islanders
action plan.
Australia
•Ireland Delivering Equality of
Opportunity (DEIS, 2005)
•System for identifying levels of
disadvantage and providing
tailored support
•n Schools (DEIS, 2005):
Ireland
•Maori and pasifika islanders
strategy
•Cultural competencies for
teachers
New
Zealand
•Action programme to promote
equal opportunity in education
(2013) lower gender differences,
impact of SES and
disadvantaged.
•One year preparatory education
for immigrants (2014).
Finland
•Québec “Act differently”:
•Database of effective practices
for intervention to develop
schools’ expertise (189 schools
in 2007/08).
•School boards, through
resources and coordination,
support the school leadership
team.
Quebec
25. Quality teaching in disadvantaged schools: a key challenge
Relationship between school average socio-economic background and teachers
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Disadvantaged schools tend to have higher
proportions of full-time teachers…
…But a fewer proportion of them have an
advanced university degree
Students
attending
more
advantaged
schools
tend to
enjoy a
higher
proportion
of high
quality, full-
time
teachers
26. Disadvantaged schools face difficulties
in attracting and retaining staff
• Teachers in schools
with higher
proportions of low-
SES or minority
students have higher
propensity to leave.
United
States
• Rural schools with
higher proportions of
aboriginal students
are seen as less
desirable, making it
harder to recruit and
retain teachers.
Australia
• School leaders report
that it is difficult to
recruit and retain
teachers to work in
schools with children
born abroad.
Japan
• Teachers in schools
with higher
proportions of low
socio-economic
status students have
higher propensity to
leave.
New
Zealand
• Schools with higher
levels of minority
students harder to
staff and teachers
are significantly more
likely to leave.
Norway
• Better qualified
teachers are less
likely to teach in
schools containing
minority and
disadvantaged
children.
France
27. More effective classroom strategies
for disadvantaged students
Effective
classroom
strategies
Diversified
and flexible
pedagogic
strategies
Summative
and
formative
assessment
Curriculum
with high
expectations
28. Policies to achieve more equitable education
systems and reduce dropout
Invest early and through upper
secondary
Support low
performing
disadvantaged
schools
Eliminate
system level
obstacles to
equity
No single model for success in the
implementation of education reforms
Reforms are specific to country’s education
system context.
Some factors for effective implementation:
Placing the student and learning at the
centre;
Invest in capacity-building;
Leadership and coherence;
Stakeholder engagement;
Clear and actionable plans.
29. Main sources for further information at OECD
Education Policy Outlook
www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlo
ok.htmwww.oecd.org/edu/equity
31. For further information at OECD Education:
Beatriz Pont, beatriz.pont@oecd.org
www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htm
www.oecd.org/pisa
Hinweis der Redaktion
Governments and education systems around the world define and implement education reforms in the search for better quality, equity of their education systems to deliver better education – whatever that means.
These include acting on key areas that contribute to improve student learning, according to evidence. We have grouped them in 3 categories:
The Education Policy Outlook aims to provide a window into countries education systems and their policy reforms by looking through set of education policy levers or areas which are key for policy making and there is selected evidence regarding their contribution to improving performance and equity and for which OECD has analysis.
They are grouped under three categories, which presents the framework that underpins the Education Policy Outlook Comparative Report and Education Policy Outlook: Country Profiles. The six policy levers that are used to organise and analyse education policy reforms:
• Students: How to raise outcomes for all in terms of equity and quality and preparing students for the future? (refers to outputs of the education system);
• Institutions: How to raise the quality of instruction through school improvement and evaluation and assessment? (refers to the quality of the inputs);
• Systems: How are governance and funding of education systems aligned to be effective? (refers to governing arrangements).
And we are analysing countries reform efforts in these areas.
Governments and education systems around the world define and implement education reforms in the search for better quality, equity of their education systems to deliver better education – whatever that means.
These include acting on key areas that contribute to improve student learning, according to evidence. We have grouped them in 3 categories:
The Education Policy Outlook aims to provide a window into countries education systems and their policy reforms by looking through set of education policy levers or areas which are key for policy making and there is selected evidence regarding their contribution to improving performance and equity and for which OECD has analysis.
They are grouped under three categories, which presents the framework that underpins the Education Policy Outlook Comparative Report and Education Policy Outlook: Country Profiles. The six policy levers that are used to organise and analyse education policy reforms:
• Students: How to raise outcomes for all in terms of equity and quality and preparing students for the future? (refers to outputs of the education system);
• Institutions: How to raise the quality of instruction through school improvement and evaluation and assessment? (refers to the quality of the inputs);
• Systems: How are governance and funding of education systems aligned to be effective? (refers to governing arrangements).
And we are analysing countries reform efforts in these areas.
In the Netherlands 18% of 25 to 34 years-old have not attained upper secondary education (ISCED 3), compared to 19% in OECD countries (Figure 1.4, see below). Those individuals that have not attained upper secondary education could lack basic qualifications.
In the Netherlands, students from low socio-economic backgrounds are 1.72 times more likely to be low performers than their peers with high socio-economic status, according to PISA 2009, which is below the OECD average (2.37 times). Students whose parents have low educational attainment have a 1.77 times higher risk of low performance and, as in most other OECD countries, students with an immigrant background are also at higher risk of low performance by 1.76 times, and so are boys in comparison to girls (1.67 times) (Figure 1.3)
Equivalence between pathways would ensure that students can choose between a range of choices in upper secondary and that VET is not perceived as a second best option. As an example, between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, Nordic countries implemented a number of educational reforms focusing largely on expanding vocational education options and making them equivalent to more academic options, as a means of encouraging students to remain in school (Bäckman et al., 2011).
Greater equivalence also means ensuring transferability between programmes to avoid dead ends and pathways which lock individuals out of further learning options. As more young people continue their studies or change their target occupations, it is necessary to give VET students the opportunity to enter some form of relevant post secondary education, including in another field of study or work. As an example, 17% of Dutch upper secondary vocational students continue into tertiary education (Akkerman et al, 2011).
To ensure equivalence with more academic programmes, VET students need to develop similar generic skills, as those usually delivered in more academic upper secondary programmes. Literacy, numeracy and scientific knowledge and skills are as important as the professional ones that VET graduates acquire for their life-course employment, learning and socialisation (OECD, 2010g). For this purpose, students should be systematically assessed upon entering VET to ensure a basic minimum and provide targeted support if needed. VET programmes should prepare their students with high level generic skills (Symonds, Schwartz and Ferguson, 2011).
Existing guidance tends to be more focused on academic choices than on occupational ones and this may not be useful for students who are considering vocational education and training. Guidance and counselling services need to engage more fully with the world of work in order to ensure their advice is accurate and appropriate, and specifically to give students the opportunity to try out future professions. Practical options include visits and meetings with representatives of local industries, community agencies, work simulation and work placements (OECD, 2004).
Chile and the Netherlands use formula funding with higher weights for disadvantaged students
In Ontario (Canada), low-income families, recent immigration, students with low educated parents, and single parent groups are taken into account in the distribution of funds to school boards
The attractiveness and relevance of the pathways offered to students in upper secondary are essential to motivate them to stay in education.
In the United States, a recent study called Pathways to Prosperity (Symonds, Schwartz and Ferguson, 2011) highlights the important value of VET for the development of well balanced young people, who acquire a combination of work oriented and academic skills to support their transition from school to work.
Although almost half of the students in upper secondary education are enrolled in vocational education and training (VET) programmes (OECD, 2011d), this average masks significant differences between countries. A group of countries has more than two thirds of their students enrolled in VET (among them: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands and Slovak Republic), while in another group, less than one third of students are enrolled in VET (Canada, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Korea, Mexico, United Kingdom) (Figure 2.4). In many countries upper secondary vocational programmes are school-based, while in countries such as Austria, Czech Republic and Iceland, more than 40% of vocational and technical programmes have a combination of school and work based elements; in Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland and Switzerland this figure surpasses 75% (OECD, 2011d).
VET programmes have tended to suffer from a poor reputation in many countries, as these seemed to be of limited relevance for the labour market and a weak option in upper secondary education (OECD, 2010g). For instance vocational tracks tend to concentrate students with lower socio-economic backgrounds, and to have higher dropout rates (OECD, 2007). Students enrolled in VET at age 15 in most OECD countries do not tend to perform as well according to PISA 2009 as those attending non-vocational tracks, after controlling for gender and a number of family characteristics (OECD, 2011d). The differences in performance are the largest in the Netherlands, Greece and Belgium although there is a group of countries, including Sweden, Luxembourg, Portugal, Switzerland and Mexico, with a positive difference in favour of students in vocational streams (OECD, 2010e). This can imply that students’ skills when they begin VET are lower, or that VET is not preparing students with basic skills in literacy, numeracy and science.
School choice advocates often argue that the introduction of market mechanisms in education allows equal access to high quality schooling for all. Expanding school choice opportunities, it is said, would allow all students – including disadvantaged ones and the ones attending low performing schools – to opt for higher quality schools, as the introduction of choice in education can foster efficiency, spur innovation and raise quality overall.
School choice schemes that do not take into account equity considerations can result in a greater sorting and segregation of students by ability, income and ethnic background (Musset, 2012). Evidence shows that oversubscribed schools tend to select students who are easier to teach and more able to learn. Also, more disadvantaged parents tend to exercise choice less. They may face more difficulties gauging the information required to make informed school choice decisions.
Policy options:
1) Limited choice by having equity criteria
2) Schemes/incentives to support low performing/ disadvantaged students
3) Reduce costs of making well-informed choices
(Examples for P1: In Cambridge (United States) and Nijmegen (Netherlands), there are central subscription systems that give priority to disadvantaged students after preferences are revealed. In Rotterdam (Netherlands), double waiting lists have been introduced. In Spain, annual family income is taken into account in the event of oversubscription, quotas can be established to preserve an even distribution, and latecomers are accommodated in a balanced way.
Among the different existing funding strategies for schools, formula funding using a needs-based group of variables is most conducive to equity. In this approach students are typically the unit of measure and money follows the student if she/he moves to another school. This funding strategy allows an additional component to account for students’ supplementary educational needs relating to socio-economic disadvantage and learning difficulties (Ross and Levacic, 1999). The additional resources are meant to provide further help for pupils such as additional teaching time, specialised learning material and in some cases smaller classes.
Since 1985, a formula funding with additional weights for disadvantaged students is usedin the Netherlands for all primary schools.Schools with substantial numbers of weighted students receive more funds.. There is no requirement that schools use these extra resources directly on these students. The “weight” of each student is determined by the parents’ educational level.Research shows that primary schools with a high proportion of weighted students have on average about 58% more teachers per student, and also more support staff (Ladd and Fiske, 2009).
In Chile, a voucher system with equal weights for all students significantly increased segregation between schools (Elacqua, 2009; Hsieh and Urquiola, 2006). In 2008, a weighted voucher scheme was adopted, to provide more resources for students from low socio-economic background and additional support to schools where disadvantaged students are concentrated. In addition to the supplementary money linked to students and schools, there is a quality assurance system including improvement plans for schools that want to accept this voucher. Elacqua (2009) analyses the impact of the weighted voucher and finds preliminary evidence that it can mitigate the segregation effects induced by universal vouchers.
In systems with large between-school variation and a concentration of low performing schools, there is a case for creating specific area-based support structures for schools. In France, special educational areas date back to 1981 and were initially conceived to promote new educational projects and partnerships with local stakeholders in order to increase academic performance. The results of the ZEP policy evaluation showed the need to concentrate more resources on fewer schools. In the school year 2006-2007, the existing networks were replaced by two networks to differentiate by levels of need: Réseaux de Réussite Scolaire (RRS, “Networks of School Success”) which include around 14% of students in compulsory schooling; and Réseaux d’Ambition Réussite (RAR, “Networks of Ambition Success”) which are confined to the most disadvantaged schools. The RAR represents expenditure per student 16% higher than the average. RAR schools receive additional funding mainly for supplementary teachers (90%) and bonuses (8%). In the school year 2010-2011 a new programme has been implemented aiming at spreading innovations in pedagogy, school life and human resources, and providing a safer environment (Moisan, 2011).
Schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged students are at greater odds of suffering from a myriad of social and economic problems that can inhibit their learning: higher levels of unemployment and lower income in their neighbourhoods and students’ families, higher proportions of single-parent families, more health problems, higher crime rates and migration of better-qualified youth can all contribute to low educational achievement (Lupton, 2004).
In addition, a higher share of disadvantaged students can have adverse effects on the organisation and processes of schools, resulting in specific educational challenges. These schools can have a charged emotional environment, with a higher proportion of students who are anxious, angry or vulnerable; and parents who may be less able to provide a stable and comfortable environment for their children. Often, students in disadvantaged schools may also have a wider range of abilities, as their prior attainment can be extremely heterogeneous. In particular the lowest achievers can have extreme learning needs and these can be difficult to meet (Lupton, 2004).
Sometimes schools’ ineffectiveness stems less from the students’ socio-economic backgrounds, and more from the schools’ inadequate response to student needs, insufficient support for staff, or poor management and professional practice. Often disadvantaged schools lack the ability to attract and retain competent staff (Harris and Chapman, 2004; Muijs et al., 2004) and access to useful professional development opportunities (Leithwood, 2010). Suitable systemic support for schools is, in many cases, insufficient, and schools find themselves alone, trapped between demanding learning environments and inadequate support systems. Additionally, as will be analysed below, some system level features may further inhibit the provision of adequate educational responses to students in these schools. Because these factors affect the learning and the teaching that happens in schools, solutions have to be designed for schools and for classrooms.
School leadership
Initial school leadership training; attractive working conditions to attract and retain competent leaders
Restructure schools when needed
School climate
School plans to prioritise school climate and positive relationships, discipline alone not effective
Monitoring and data for intervention
Alternative organisation of distribution of learning time
Quality teaching
Provide specialised initial teacher education
Ensure incentives and working conditions, time for planning, working together, mentoring
Classroom strategies
Support culture of high expectations
Provide teacher support on how to tailor instruction, assessment and curricular practices to needs of disadvantaged schools and students
Parental and community engagement
Need to prioritise with select communication strategies
Provide guidelines to parents on their role
Foster closer links with communities and mentors
Managing for Success: the Māori Education Strategy 08-12 specific curriculum /focus on 14-18 engagement
Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Māori Learners (2012) cultural support to improve teaching of Māoris
In Ontario, the Focused Intervention Program (OFIP, since 2006/07) provides targeted support to primary schools that have “experienced particular difficulties in achieving continuous improvement”, measured through results on provincial assessments of reading, writing, and mathematics (grades 3 and 6). OFIP funds are used for professional development, additional student and professional learning resources, literacy and numeracy coaches, and teacher release time for collaboration and additional training. In 2006/07, schools qualified for OFIP support if less than 34% of students reached provincial standard in grade 3 reading. In addition, since 2009/10, resources from the OFIP programme were extended to over 1100 schools in which less than 75% of students met provincial standard in the grades 3 and 6 assessments (Schools in the Middle [SIM]). OFIP and SIM aim at pooling and enhancing professional resources within a school so that under-achievement becomes a shared issue. It is tackled, for example, by a school improvement team supported by literacy and numeracy coaches. Schools selected for participation in OFIP tend to be those serving disadvantaged communities, with a relatively high percentage of students with special education needs or an above-average range of educational challenges. From 2002/03 to 2010/11, the number of schools with fewer than 34% of students achieving at provincial standard in grade 3 reading was reduced by two thirds (from 19% to 6%), showing significant success in reducing the number of primary schools in which students fail.
In Ireland, the DEIS (Delivering Equality of opportunity In Schools, launched in 2005), focuses on addressing the needs of schools with a concentrated level of disadvantage. It has developed a standardised system for identifying levels of disadvantage in schools and provides a range of support (670 primary schools and 195 post-primary schools), including: reduced pupil teacher ratios (for urban primary schools in communities with the highest concentrations of disadvantage); allocation of administrative principals; additional allocation based on level of disadvantage; additional financial allocation for school books; access to numeracy/literacy support and programmes at primary level; access to Home School Community Liaison services; access to School Completion Programme; enhanced guidance and counselling provision at post-primary level; enhanced planning support; access to the Junior Certificate Schools Programme and the Leaving Cert Applied; and provision for school library and librarian support for the post primary schools with highest concentrations of disadvantage. The last report on Retention in post primary schools shows that the average Leaving Certificate retention rate in DEIS schools increased from 68.2% to 73.2% for students who entered post primary level from 2001 to 2004.
Each of these policy levers is analysed in one page at the most,
where we discuss the context of the country in terms of that lever,
the main related challenge
and the reforms the country is putting in place to respond to these challenges.