Quality education for all: A workshop on disability-inclusive development goals and aid effectiveness
âąAls PPTX, PDF herunterladenâą
2 gefĂ€llt mirâą876 views
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.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere Àhnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (10)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ăhnlich wie Quality education for all: A workshop on disability-inclusive development goals and aid effectiveness
Ăhnlich wie Quality education for all: A workshop on disability-inclusive development goals and aid effectiveness (20)
Mehr von EduSkills OECD
Mehr von EduSkills OECD (20)
KĂŒrzlich hochgeladen
KĂŒrzlich hochgeladen (20)
Quality education for all: A workshop on disability-inclusive development goals and aid effectiveness
- 1. Quality education for all Disability-inclusive MDGâs and Aid Effectiveness â 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
- 4. Good education = equitable education
- 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
- 6. Quality & equity of education for SENDDD children
- 7. Sources of comparative information o Programme for International Student Assessment â 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 studentsâ 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
- 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
- 14. Policy options
- 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 âą Initial school leadership training; attractive working School leadership conditions to attract and retain competent leaders âą Restructure schools when needed âą School plans to prioritise school climate and positive relationships, discipline alone not effective School climate âą Support students âą Alternative organisation of distribution of learning time âą Provide specialised initial teacher education Quality teaching âą Ensure incentives and working conditions, time for planning, working together, mentoring âą Support culture of high expectations âą Provide teacher support on how to tailor Classroom strategies instruction, assessment and curricular practices to needs of disadvantaged schools and students Parental and âą Need to prioritize with select communication strategies community âą Provide guidelines to parents on their role engagement âą 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 * âą 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 studentsâ 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 childâs 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 âcharacteristics 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 â 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