Achieving Equity and Inclusion in Education: An OECD Perspective

  • 1,476 views
Uploaded on

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 …

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

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Bonjour,
    Bien que mon adresse mèl soit correct, il m'est impossible d'enregistrer ce document et déjà essayé à plusieurs reprises.
    Pourriez-vous m'aider?
    RMCambourg
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,476
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5

Actions

Shares
Downloads
73
Comments
1
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • 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.

Transcript

  • 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
  • 4. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Singapore ChineseTaipei HongKong-China Korea Japan Switzerland Belgium Netherlands Germany Poland Canada Finland NewZealand Australia Austria France CzechRepublic OECDaverage UnitedKingdom Luxembourg Iceland SlovakRepublic Ireland Portugal Denmark Italy Norway Israel Hungary UnitedStates Sweden Spain Russian… Greece Chile Brazil Mexico % Equity does not necessarily hamper qualityTab I.2.1a UK Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skills.
  • 5. Likelihoo d of positive social and economic outcomes among highly literate adults 5 Benefits of high literacy Likelihood of positive outcomes among highly literate adults, PIAAC 2012
  • 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
  • 9. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Korea Japan Switzerland 2.5Belgium 3.9Netherlands -3.9Germany -7.7Poland 3.7Canada 5.5Finland 7.6NewZealand 5.3Australia Austria 0.7OECDaverage2003 5.7France 4.4CzechRepublic 2.6Luxembourg 6.5Iceland 7.5SlovakRepublic Ireland -5.2Portugal Denmark -7.3Italy Norway 5.1Hungary UnitedStates 9.8Sweden Spain -10.2Turkey Greece -11.2Mexico Proportion of 15 year olds that do not reach a minimum level (below level 2), PISA 2003 and 2012 The challenge: that all students reach a minimum
  • 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
  • 16. Upper secondary pathways 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Austria CzechRepublic Belgium SlovakRepublic Finland Netherlands Switzerland Slovenia Luxembourg Italy Sweden Norway Germany China RussianFederation Australia Denmark Poland OECDaverage France Spain Turkey NewZealand Portugal Israel Ireland Chile Iceland Estonia Greece UnitedKingdom Hungary Korea Japan Brazil Mexico Canada India Percentageofstudents General Vocational Brazil India Enrolment in upper secondary by programme
  • 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
  • 21. Insufficient systemic support Schools’ inadequate response to student needs Insufficient support for staff Poor manageme nt Impact of student’s socio- economic backgroun d Wider range of abilities Challengin g school climate Poor school environme nts Disadvantaged schools are confronted to multiple challenges Demanding learning environment Inadequate support systems
  • 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
  • 30. Context Reforms Challenges Education Policy Outlook: Country Profiles A comparative OECD insight into a country’s context, challenges and policy responses
  • 31. For further information at OECD Education: Beatriz Pont, beatriz.pont@oecd.org www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htm www.oecd.org/pisa