Developing Inclusive Social Policies: Education for Azerbaijan's Internally Displaced

357 views
234 views

Published on

Using data on university admission from the State Students Admission Commission, this research shows that significantly fewer students from IDP schools in Azerbaijan attend university compared to students at non-IDP schools that are located in the same geographic location. This disadvantage holds in both urban and rural areas.

Published in: Education, Travel, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
357
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Baxmayaraqki, bizimməktəblərçoxgözəldir. Amma "qaçqınməktəbi"adıaltındadır. Onagörədəyaxşıoxuyanuşaqlarımızdalitseylərdətəhsilalmaqüçünçıxır. Bizdəqalanuşaqlarisəzəifintelleksəviyyəsinəmalikolanuşaqlarolur. Olinpiadalardayertutabilmirik. Çünki, yaxşıoxuyanuşaqlarbizdənçıxıblitseylərəgedirlərki, qaçqınməktəbindəoxumasınlar.İlinənyaxşıməktəbivəmüəllimiolabilmirik. Düşünürəmki, müəlliminyüksəknaliyyətiolmalıdı.
  • Developing Inclusive Social Policies: Education for Azerbaijan's Internally Displaced

    1. 1. Developing an Inclusive Social Policy: Azerbaijan’s IDP schools Center for Innovations in Education Vitaly Radsky
    2. 2. 1. Data – Is there a difference in educational achievement between IDP and non-IDP schools and regions? 2.How and Why? - Social exclusion concept 3. Policy
    3. 3. IDP Schools in Azerbaijan (5 regions) Fuzuli Agdam Lachin Susa Qubadli
    4. 4. Question 1: Is there a difference between the school achievement of IDP and non-IDP regions? • H0= There is no difference between the university admission rate of IDP and non-IDP schools in Azerbaijan. • HA= There is a significant difference between the university admission rate of IDP and nonIDP schools in Azerbaijan.
    5. 5. National IDP schools vs. National Average, 2012 IDP Average 59% National Average 60% 23% % of students finishing secondary school applying to university 27% % of students finishing secondary school accepted to university χ2 (1, N = 86857) = 38.148, p <.01. Students at IDP schools are less likely to be accepted by universities than students at non-IDP schools.
    6. 6. IDP schools vs. National Average, 2012 IDP Average 71% National Average 70% 27% % of students receiving diploma applying to university 31% % of students receiving diploma accepted to university χ2 (1, N = 74779) = 28.053, p <.01. Students at IDP schools are less likely to be accepted by universities than students at non-IDP schools.
    7. 7. Urban Areas Urban education: IDP vs. Non-IDP, 2012 IDP Urban Average 82% National Urban Average 87% 44% 34% % of students receiving diploma applying to university % of students receiving diploma accepted to university χ2 (1, N = 28962) = 47.268, p <.01. Students at IDP schools located in urban areas (including Baku) are less likely to be accepted by universities than students at non-IDP schools studying in urban areas.
    8. 8. Rural Areas Rural education: IDP vs. Non-IDP, 2012 IDP Total (Rural) 58% National Rural Average 58% 22% 16% % of students receiving diploma applying to universitystudents receiving diploma accepted to university % of χ2 (1, N = 44294) = 26.667, p <.01. Students at IDP schools located in rural areas are less likely to be accepted by universities than students at non-IDP schools studying in rural areas.
    9. 9. Result • HA= There is a significant difference between the university admission rate of IDP and nonIDP schools in Azerbaijan. • Nationally, and when controlling for school location, IDP schools send proportionally fewer students to university than non-IDP schools.
    10. 10. IDP Schools in Azerbaijan (5 regions)
    11. 11. Baku education: IDP vs. Non-IDP, 2012 IDP Average (Baku) 83% Baku Azerage 88% 46% 37% % of students receiving diploma applying to university % of students receiving diploma accepted to university χ2 (1, N = 21067) = 21.668, p < .01. There is a significant difference between the proportion of students accepted to university from IDP schools based in Baku and non-IDP Baku schools. The difference in proportion of students accepted to universities were significant between Baku and
    12. 12. IDP Schools in Baku, 2012 Baku Azerage Lachin (in Baku) Qubadli (in Baku) Susa (in Baku) 46% 42% Fuzuli (in Baku) Agdam (in Baku) 39% 36%* 36%* 30%* % of students receiving secondary school diploma admitted to university χ2 (1, N = 21067) = 27.493, p < .01. There is a significant difference between the proportion of students accepted to university between Baku non-IDP schools and Baku-based Susa, Fuzuli, and Agdam schools.
    13. 13. IDP Schools in Azerbaijan (5 regions) Lachin- 82 schools Rural- 45 (55%) Agcabedi- 23 Barda- 9 Others- 5 (Agsu, Sheki, Goranboy, Oguz, Beyleqan) Urban- 37 (45%) Baku- 30 (36%) Sumgayit- 7
    14. 14. Lachin Urban vs. Sumgayit and Baku, 2012 Lachin Urban (Sumgayit and Baku) Sumgayit and Baku Average 45% 37% % of students receiving a secondary school diploma accepted to university (z = -3.07, p < .05, one-tailed) There is a significant difference between the proportion of students accepted to university between Lachin Baku and Sumgayit based schools and non-IDP schools In Baku and Sumgayit.
    15. 15. Lachin Rural vs. non-IDP Rural, 2012 Lachin Rural Average of the rural regions where Lachin schools are located 26% 17% % of students receiving a secondary school diploma accepted to university (z = -2.933, p < .05, one-tailed) There is a significant difference between the proportion of students accepted to university between Lachin rural-based schools and non-IDP schools based in the rural regions where Lachin schools are located.
    16. 16. Result • HA= There is a significant difference between the university admission rate of IDP and nonIDP schools in Azerbaijan. • When controlling for school location, IDP schools send proportionally fewer students to university than non-IDP schools.
    17. 17. Question 2: What role does geography have in the differing results of IDP schools? • H0= There is no difference in the university admission rate in schools in different IDP regions in Azerbaijan. • HA= There is a significant difference in the university admission rate between schools in different IDP regions in Azerbaijan.
    18. 18. University Admissions by IDP Region: National, 2012 Qubadlı rayonu Zəngilan rayonu Şuşa rayonu Kəlbəcər rayonu Cəbrayıl rayonu Xocalı rayonu Laçın rayonu Xocavənd rayonu Ağdam rayonu Füzuli rayonu 36% 36% 33% 31% 30% 30% 29% 26% 21% 18% % of students receiving a secondary school diploma accepted to university χ2 (9, N = 3942) = 77.53886, p <.01. There is a significant difference in the proportion of students admitted to university between IDP districts.
    19. 19. IDP Schools in Azerbaijan (5 regions)
    20. 20. Comparison between IDP Regions: Urban, 2012 Lachin Urban 37% Susha Urban 35% Qubadli Urban 34% Fuzuli Urban Agdam Urban 33% 29% % of students receiving diploma accepted to university χ2 (4, N = 1156) = 3.836, p >.1. There is no significant difference between the proportion of students accepted to university among students studying in urban-based IDP schools (5 IDP regions).
    21. 21. Comparison between IDP regions: Rural, 2012 Agdam Rural 18% Lachin Rural Fuzuli Rural 17% 13% % of students receiving a diploma applying to university χ2 (2, N = 1339) = 4.3695, p >.1. There is no significant difference between the proportion of students accepted to university among students studying in rural-based IDP schools (5 IDP regions).
    22. 22. Result • Ho= There is not a significant difference in the university admission rate between schools in different IDP regions in Azerbaijan, once location of school is controlled. • What separates overall lower achieving IDP regions such as Agdam and higher achieving regions such as Qubadli is school location, rather than something like regional education management.
    23. 23. IDPs: Disadvantaged or Not?
    24. 24. Social Exclusion “a way of conceptualizing society, including (and with a focus on) the processes of deprivation that are an integral part of that society.” -de Haan, 2000 • 1) Multidimensionality • 2) Causation (how and why) – interactions, processes, actors, and institutions that “include some groups and exclude others.” -de Haan, 2000
    25. 25. Stigma and Isolation • “Some people compare Sumgait schools with Sumgait IDP school—this is not fair. They have richer parents, we have a IDP status label, that is why there is a small number of students who want to come to our school.” (Qubadli teacher, FGD, 2011)
    26. 26. Educational Human Resources • “a good young teacher will never chose an IDP school over a regular school when choosing a job.” (Baku Education Inspector, Interview, 2011)
    27. 27. Conclusion 1. Disadvantaged or Not? We need more data comparing educational results of IDP and non-IDP students. 2. Why and How? Social exclusion offers a new way to look at deprivation and inequality in Azerbaijan. 3. What Policies?
    28. 28. Thank You Center for Innovations in Education www.cie.az Vitaly Radsky radsky.vitaly@gmail.com

    ×