The presentation gives an overview of some OECD data on inclusion of children with disabilities, difficulties and disadvantages, on how they fare in mainstream education, and on the relationship between disability and socio-economic background. It discusses PISA insights on quality and equity of education (the systems performing well in PISA often have high levels of equity) and offers several policy options for supporting inclusiveness and disadvanted students and schools.
Disha NEET Physics Guide for classes 11 and 12.pdf
Quality education for all: A workshop on disability-inclusive development goals and aid effectiveness
1. Quality education for all
Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness – a
workshop contribution
Bangkok, 14-16 March 2012
Mihaylo Milovanovitch
OECD Directorate For Education
2. Percentage of population
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Korea
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Poland
Slovenia
Canada
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
Austria
United States
Source: OECD PISA 2009
25-34
Israel
Estonia
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
25-64
Denmark
Chile
France
Luxembourg
The challenge
Norway
Belgium
Australia
education by age group
Netherlands
United Kingdom
OECD average
New Zealand
Greece
Italy
Iceland
Spain
% of people who have not completed upper secondary
Portugal
Mexico
Turkey
3. Structure
o Good education = equitable education
o What do we know about the quality & equity of
education for SENDDD children?
o Policy options
5. High reading performance
Shanghai-China Shanghai-China
560
High average performance
Korea Korea
High average performance Finland Finland High social equity
540Hong Kong-China Hong Kong-China
Large socio-economic disparities Singapore
Singapore
Canada Canada
New Zealand New Zealand
Japan
Japan
Australia Australia
520
Netherlands
Netherlands
Belgium Belgium
Poland, Switzerland
Poland, Switzerland Norway
Norway ,Estonia
United States States
United Iceland Estonia
Liechtenstein Iceland
Liechtenstein
Strong socio- Germany, Sweden
Germany,Sweden Socially equitable
Ireland
France,Ireland Chinese Taipei,
Chinese Taipei,
France Denmark
Denmark
economic impact on Hungary, United Kingdom 500
Hungary United Kingdom distribution of learning
Portugal Portugal
student performance Macao-China Italy Italy opportunities
Latvia Latvia
Slovenia
Slovenia Greece Greece Spain
Czech Republic Czech Republic
Slovak Republic, Republic Spain
Slovak Croatia
Croatia
Israel Israel
Luxembourg 480
Luxembourg
Austria Austria Lithuania Lithuania
Turkey Turkey
Dubai (UAE) Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation
Russian Federation
460
Chile Chile
Low average performance Serbia Serbia average performance
Low
Large socio-economic disparities High social equity
440
55 45 35 25 15
Low reading performance
7. Sources of comparative information
o Programme for International Student Assessment –
PISA (2003 and 2006)
o Data collection and comparisons through the OECD
SENDDD framework
o Qualitative research in the framework of the No More
Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education OECD project.
o Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
Source: OECD PISA 2003
8. The socio-economic background of SEN students
in SEE and the Baltic, 2006
School grade of 15 year olds who took the PISA test
Source: OECD PISA 2006; Note: data has limited statistical significance due to small sample
Current grade
100%
90% 22% 22%
80%
70%
11th grade
60%
10th grade
50% 43%
9th grade
71%
40% 8th grade
30% 7th grade
20%
26%
10%
6%
0%
Current grade non SEN% Current grade SEN%
9. SEN students’ educational
experience and expectations
Limited
Functional Intellectual
Not SEN Language Other
Disability Disability
Proficiency
ISCED Level
% % % % %
Pre-Primary (0)
Did not attend 11.8 10.9 11.4 26.3 8.5
Attended 24.3 25.9 36.2 25.7 23.1
Attended > 1 year 63.8 63.3 52.4 48.1 68.4
Primary (1)
Have not repeated 91.6 87.7 74.5 83.6 72.8
Repeated 7.5 10.5 22.1 14.6 25.8
Repeated > Once 1.0 1.8 3.4 1.8 1.3
Lower Secondary (2)
Have not repeated 93.2 96.0 89.2 88.7 94.8
Repeated 6.3 3.6 9.4 10.5 5.2
Repeated > Once 0.5 0.4 1.4 0.7 0.0
Upper Secondary (3)
Have not repeated 97.3 96.9 97.0 96.6 97.3
Repeated 2.7 2.3 2.8 3.1 2.7
Repeated > Once 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.0
Source: OECD PISA 2003
10. The socio-economic background of SEN students
in SEE and the Baltic, 2006
Family background
Source: OECD PISA 2006; Note: data has limited statistical significance due to small sample
Highest Parent education
parent occupational status
100%
100%
90%
90%
28%
80%
80% 42% 41%
47%
70%
70%
60%
60% Post Secondary, Tertiary
50% Upper Secondary
50% Blue collar workers
Compulsory
40%
40% 35% White collar workers
None
69%
42%
30%
30%
53%
20%
20%
22%
10%
10%
12%
0%
0%
Not SEN
Not SEN SEN
SEN
11. Comparison of student mathematics performance
by SEN status
Not SEN SEN
Level 6
Level 5
Performance level
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Below Level 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source: OECD PISA 2003 Percentage of students
12.
13. 0
100
150
200
300
350
400
450
500
250
50
Non SEN
Functional disability
PISA
Intellectual disability
Limited language prof.
Non SEN
Functional disability
OECD
Intellectual disability
Limited language prof.
Non SEN
Functional disability
EU
Intellectual disability
Limited language prof.
SEE and the Baltic, PISA 2006
Non SEN
Functional disability
Intellectual disability
SEE and Baltic
Limited language prof.
Performance in reading of non-SEN and SEN students in
Source: OECD PISA 2006; Note: data has limited statistical significance due to small sample
15. Improving equity and reducing school failure is a
policy priority
All countries are confronted with equity challenges, and they can be of
different types
There are many different policies and strategies, yet no common
knowledge base of what works
Countries face challenges in adopting and implementing policies to
improve equity in education
There is a need for clear policy responses
16. Support disadvantaged and inclusive schools
• Initial school leadership training; attractive working
School leadership conditions to attract and retain competent leaders
• Restructure schools when needed
• School plans to prioritise school climate and positive
relationships, discipline alone not effective
School climate • Support students
• Alternative organisation of distribution of learning time
• Provide specialised initial teacher education
Quality teaching • Ensure incentives and working conditions, time for
planning, working together, mentoring
• Support culture of high expectations
• Provide teacher support on how to tailor
Classroom strategies instruction, assessment and curricular practices to
needs of disadvantaged schools and students
Parental and • Need to prioritize with select communication strategies
community • Provide guidelines to parents on their role
engagement • Foster closer links with communities and mentors
17. 20%
30%
0%
5%
10%
25%
15%
35%
Classroom management *
Student discipline ans
behaviour problems *
development
Instructional practices *
Student assessment practices
*
Subject field *
New teachers
Content and performance
standards *
Student counselling *
Experienced teachers
Teaching special learning
0.33
needs students *
0.31
School management and
administration *
• SEN is named as area of greatest need for professional
Teaching in a multicultural
setting
TALIS 2012 - Teacher training
ICT teaching skills *
17
18. Score point difference
0
-20
120
140
100
20
40
60
80
Finland
Norway
Qatar
Iceland
Macao-China
Denmark
Poland
Spain
Canada
Azerbaijan
Dubai (UAE)
United States
Ireland
Jordan
Panama
Sweden
Estonia
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Advantaged student
United Kingdom
Disadvantaged student
Korea
Indonesia
Chinese Taipei
Latvia
Tunisia
Brazil
Thailand
Australia
Israel
Greece
Albania
New Zealand
Kyrgyzstan
Romania
Mexico
Lithuania
OECD average
background
Chile
Portugal
Shanghai-China
Peru
Colombia
Montenegro
Uruguay
Serbia
Italy
Luxembourg
Croatia
France
Switzerland
Liechtenstein
Japan
Turkey
Belgium
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Hong Kong-China
advantaged schools, by students’ socio-economic
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Argentina
Austria
Singapore
Difference between observed and predicted performance in
Germany
Hungary
Slovenia
Source: OECD PISA 2009
Trinidad and Tobago
19. So, what can be done?
Identify the student
population at risk,
and cater to its needs
Eliminate system Support
level obstacles to disadvantaged or
equity challenged schools
20. score
Mean
300
350
400
450
500
550
Finland
Hong Kong-China
Singapore
Canada
New Zealand
All students
Australia
Netherlands
Belgium
Norway
Estonia
Switzerland
United States
Liechtenstein
Sweden
Germany
Source: OECD PISA 2009
Ireland
France
Denmark
United Kingdom
Hungary
OECD average
Portugal
Macao-China
Students without an immigrant background
Italy
Slovenia
Greece
Spain
Czech Republic
Croatia
Israel
Luxembourg
Austria
Dubai (UAE)
Russian Federation
Serbia
Second-generation students
Mexico
Trinidad and…
Brazil
Montenegro
Jordan
Reading performance, by immigrant status
Argentina
Kazakhstan
Qatar
Panama
Azerbaijan
Kyrgyzstan
First-generation students
21. The challenge: to reduce the risk of low achievement due to
personal circumstances (fairness)
Relative risk of scoring below level 2 depending on personal circumstances
4.5 Low socio-economic status Low parental education
(low vs. high) (low vs. high)
High risk
4.0 Immigrant status Gender
(immigrant vs. non-immigrant) (boys vs. girls)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Low risk
0.5
0.0
Germany
Hungary
Turkey
Estonia
Australia
Spain
Italy
Slovenia
Israel
Japan
Netherlands
Austria
Mexico
Canada
Iceland
Portugal
Korea
Finland
Norway
Ireland
Greece
Belgium
United Kingdom
Poland
New Zealand
Sweden
France
Denmark
Switzerland
Slovak Republic
United States
Luxembourg
Chile
Czech Republic
OECD average
Source: OECD PISA 2009
Hinweis der Redaktion
Education is fundamental in determining a child’s adult life: indeed education is not only associated with higher income, but also with better health, and even longer life for individuals. For societies, education has been demonstrated to also contribute considerably to economic growth. Education has expanded considerably in the past fifty years. Nevertheless, even if more and more students finish school and enter tertiary education, many children are still left behind and exit the education systems without the skills that they will need for their adult life, representing a true handicap in terms of employment and life chances. Across OECD countries, one out of four youngsters have only primary or lower secondary education.
Even when in mainstream schools,SEN students have difficulties in coping with the curriculum, and a considerable share of those repeat. This is the last year of compulsory education. Imagine how much repetition there was beforehand, and how many have dropped out before they could be sampled in the PISA survey
One more on repetition:SEN students repeat more often and attend to a lesser extent pre-primary education –characteristics that are considered less favourable to performance!!! Looking at definition for limited language proficiency, information on pre-primary edu is irrelevant !
SEN students tend to come from more disadvantaged backgrounds than non-SEN students.
If we forget about repetition for a moment, how about performance - good old classical achievement. Lower performance than NOT SEN students, BUT high performance is possible also for this group!! Of course, it must be kept in mind whether these are students with functional or intellectual disabilities, or such which experience difficulties with a non-native language.
Similar message holds for all countries which participated in the 2009 PISA round
Patterns hold everywhere
This shows the percentage of new and experienced teachers who report high professional development needs in each area across all countries.Teaching students with special need was again the area with the most need for PD (both experienced and new teachers).In Korea and Malaysia, more than half of new teachers said they had a high need for PD for dealing with student behaviour problems (54% and 59% compared to 33% and 40% for experienced teachers)In many countries, twice as many new teachers stated a high new for PD in classroom management skills compared to experienced teachers (including Australia, Belgium, Estonia, Norway, Iceland, Spain).
A simulation: what would happen to educational outcomes of disadvantaged students if they would be given a chance and placed in an advantaged school. In most of the countries the improvement in educational achievement would be tremendous, especially in some countries which are known for their culture (or better – cult?) of excellence, such as Singapore, Bulgaria, Hong Kong, Japan, or their early tracking of students such as Austria, Germany or Switzerland, or simply countries with large disparities between rich and poor, such as Argentina, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey.
Example-migration policies. Immigrants. Expecially children of first generation immigrants are often idadvantegaed-language, socio-economic background etc.
It is very important to know which are the risk groups, identiy them and target policy measures. Countries vary greatly in this respect