Teacher quality and equity in korea and indonesia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Teacher quality and equity in korea and indonesia

on

  • 519 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
519
Views on SlideShare
519
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Teacher quality and equity in korea and indonesia Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Teacher Quality and Equity in Comparative Context: It is What It Is Not Yet Jae Bum Han, James Pippin & Iwan Syahril
  • 2. a tossed salad - a unity in diversity
  • 3. Agenda• Introduction. • Meritocracy or Social Reproduction?• Finland Video. • Suggestions• Quality teachers: The definition problem. • 3-2-1• Views on Equity • Closing• South Korean Case 1• South Korean Case 2• Indonesian Case
  • 4. • Finland Video
  • 5. Quality teachers: What does it mean?• Respected Professionals • Intellectually interesting and attractive for the young.• Highly-trained • Entry to program: best• University-based teacher students, motivated. education • Content area mastery.• Master’s degree • Heavy investment on• Freedom in decision making educational research. (curriculum, student evaluation) • Mentorship • Collaboration
  • 6. Quality teachers: The Definition problem• Variety in definition:• “...credentials, classroom practice, students’ test scores, values and beliefs, passion, morality, verbal/ communication skills, education coursework, pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, cross-cultural understanding, organized, high expectations, etc...etc..etc...”• We acknowledge this, but not the main focus in our paper.
  • 7. Views on Equity
  • 8. Quality for All• “...one of the most important political issues in Finland is that we want to have a system where all the pupils and all the people have the equal opportunities and education, and it doesn’t matter where you are living or are you rich or poor, or are you girl or boy. We want to give equal opportunities for everyone.” (Henna Virkunnen, Former Finland’s Minister of Education).
  • 9. Quality for All• “We have very small disparities between low and high achievers in PISA tests. One reason behind our success - there is a virtuous circle surrounding teaching. That has to do with excellent teacher education and training. Other reason could be that we have always emphasized high standards for all.” (Timo Lankinen, Director General, National Board of Education, Finland)
  • 10. Quality for All• “...we have good quality in all the schools....the parents can trust the school which is nearest their home that it has very good quality....We have to work every day for that, that we can keep the good quality and equal opportunities for everyone all over the country.” (Henna Virkunnen, Former Finland’s Minister of Education)
  • 11. rate Equ paSe t i ty a bu ade s qua qu al? cy? e
  • 12. Peske & Haycock (2006)• “...the very children who most need strong teachers are assigned, on average, to teachers with less experience, less education, and less skill than those who teach other children” (p. 2).
  • 13. Conceptions of Equity (Ladd & Loeb, 2011)• Equity as Equal Opportunity (Equity as Equal Outcomes): Focus on outcomes. Variation of quality is needed in order to help achieve equal educational outcomes. Students who are behind will get higher quality services to compensate the differences that contribute to unequal outcomes.• Equity as Adequacy: Focus on input but allow variability and/or disparity in quality. A minimum adequate standard level of quality of service. Once it is met, it is fair for some to receive a higher standard than the rest.• Equity as Access to Equal Quality: Focus on input. Everyone is guaranteed an equal quality of service regardless their socioeconomic backgrounds and regardless which school they attend. Outcomes may be different but they are factors that schools cannot control (abilities, motivations, out-of-school support).
  • 14. Case 1: South Korea
  • 15. Educational Support for Childrenfrom Multicultural Backgrounds 2006
  • 16. The Changing Face of Korea• Increasing numbers of “international” marriages, foreign workers, and NK refugees• Means more diversity in a historically homogeneous society and its schools
  • 17. New Challenges• Like immigrant students elsewhere these children tend to suffer from… –Lack of language skills –Identity confusion –Bullying –Ostracism –Low performance –High dropout rates
  • 18. Policy Tasks• Start more after school programs• Separate counselor in each school• In-service training for teachers• More Korean language/culture options for pre- service teachers• Incentives for teachers to obtain KSL cert• Erase references to homogeneity in books• Encourage volunteerism in schools
  • 19. Policy Critique• These seem like common sense strategies• Yet… –Externally oriented –Insufficient training in multicultural education –No apparent consideration of long-term workforce diversification• Raises a question about the definition of teacher quality in different contexts
  • 20. Distribution of Teacher Quality• Quite a bit of US literature suggests that –Both students of color and white students benefit from diverse role models –Students of color benefit from same-race teacher or a representative staff –Students of color benefit from a diversified teacher labor force
  • 21. Qs• Will Korea’s policies contribute to or lead to social reproduction? Alternative perspectives?• To what degree is a teacher’s background or ethnicity important in determining his or her quality?
  • 22. Case 2: South Korea
  • 23. Governance  of  Educa.on  in  South   Korea CENTRAL  LEVEL Ministry  of  Educa7on,  Science   and  Technology INTERMIDIATE  LEVEL 16  metropolitan  and  provincial  offices  of   Educa7on LOCAL  LEVEL 180  district  offices  of  Educa7on
  • 24. Teacher  Educa.on  for   Public  School  Teacher Elementary  School  Teacher Secondary  School  Teacher 11  Na7onal  Universi7es  of  Educa7on Teacher  Colleges Teacher  Educa7on  Courses  in   2  Other  Types  of  Universi7es Comprehensive  Universi7es(Korea  Na7onal  University  of  Educa7on,   Ewha  Women’s  University) Departments  of  Educa7on  In   Comprehensive  Universi7es Graduate  Schools  of  Educa7on
  • 25. Teacher  RecruitmentEmployment  Examina7on   Features Highly  Compe77ve  Exam   Mul7ple  Choice  Exam  about   (Secondary    -­‐    20  :  1 Educa7on  Knowledge  Elementary  -­‐    2.5  :  1) Controlled  by  Central  Government (Teacher  Quota,  Examina7on,  etc.) Cri7cal  Essay  about  Each  Subject Interview,  Lesson  Plan,  and   Teaching  Simula7on
  • 26. Two Main Influential Teacher Policies Teacher  Evalua7on Teacher  Rota7on (Promo7on)Each public school has similar workplace conditions– totalnumber of class hours a day and a week, teaching contents,incentives, and salaries.
  • 27. Teacher  Evalua.on  and   Promo.on• Teacher Appraisal for Professional Development in 2010.• Questionnaire – Peer, Students, Parents, Principal• Teachers with poor results receive supplementary training that is tailored to their needs• Teachers with high performances are given opportunities for personal research or education at universities and relevant institutions at home or abroad. Sabbatical Year
  • 28. Teacher Rotation System• Every three to five years, teachers should move to a different school within the city or province.• After working three to five years in a school, teachers can choose which school they want to go.• When there are many teachers who chose the same schools simultaneously, scores that they earned have a significant effect on the result.• Scores are gained based on teachers’ experience, hours of professional development, award from teaching contests.• Principles- Improving professionalism, ensuring fairness, allocating teachers properly, and giving students the equal probability of teaching.
  • 29. Inequality of Teacher Distribution• The most important factors for teachers to choose their next schools are “location of schools” and “convenience of commute”.• The overall social and economic status of a region is higher, many qualified teachers are more willing to transfer to this area.• To reduce the distance of commute, teachers want to live near their schools.• It is obvious that teachers hesitate to move to the schools with poor environment.• Thus, novice teachers or teachers with lower scores are distributed to these locations
  • 30. Case 3: Indonesia
  • 31. Indonesia - Education Facts• 17,501 islands, 240 million people• 2.7 million teachers, 50 million students, 270 thousand schools• 4th world’s largest education system
  • 32. Teacher Law 2005• Bachelor’s degree + Teacher Certification• 37.5% of Indonesian teachers in 2007 were Bachelor’s degree holders.
  • 33. International Standard School (ISS) Policy • What? A school whose quality is competitive internationally. (Education Law, 2003) An international standard school should at least satisfy the Indonesian basic national educational standards and should have enrichment curriculum that is taken from best practices in OECD countries. (Government Decree No.17/2009) “Schools with: 1) English as medium of instruction; 2) Great facilities esp. ICT.”
  • 34. International Standard School (ISS) Policy• Why? 1) to improve the quality and competitiveness of Indonesian students both in regional and international levels; 2) to respond towards the increase of international migration in international labor market; 3) to prepare the competitiveness of the Indonesia’s human resources in the international labor market; 4) to maintain the competitiveness of Indonesian human resources in the national labor market which is created by the foreign investment. (General Director of Elementary & Secondary Ed)
  • 35. International Standard School (ISS) Policy • How? A school applies - documents: a five-year development plan, an action plan, and a self-evaluation plan. 3 stages of approval the local ministry of education ---> the provincial ministry of national education --> the verification committee in the national ministry of education. If approved, the school will receive a substantial amount of funding from the central government to carry out the development plan. This development plan lasts for five years. In the first two years, the will receive300 million rupiahs ($30,000), and in the subsequent year the amount of funding is determined based on the performance of the first two years.This funding is usually used to invest in improving school buildings, adding facilities like new chairs, desks, air conditioners, projectors and computers.
  • 36. Teachers in ISS• Higher standards than regular schools. Bachelor’s degree holder, ICT literate, fluent in English. Some native speakers.• At least some teachers who possess master’s and doctoral degrees. (10% for elementary school, 20% for junior secondary, and 30% for senior secondary)• Use sophisticated teaching facilities• Great PD support (at least 100 million/year)• Study abroad.
  • 37. Students’ Socioeconomic Status• “Our parents are busy. Children are brought to school by their drivers and nursemaids....Parents were middle to upper- class....The pupils have no problems with English - they are the children of rich parents and we select them rigorously as well....Our parents are middle class and above, mostly from this housing complex. We are supposed to accept pupils with good results from neighboring sub-districts but we’re reluctant to do that because this will be a financial burden on the school. We’d have to arrange transport to collect the children and take them home” (Coleman, 2011, p. 9).
  • 38. • ISSs are allowed to raise its own funding and collect donation from parents, a practice forbidden for non ISS schools.• In 2010 on average an ISS primary school charged monthly fee 200 thousand rupiahs (US$ 20) per student on top of the average annual contribution fee 6 million rupiahs (US$ 600). For secondary schools the 2010 average for monthly fee was 450 thousand rupiahs (US$ 45), and the average for annual contribution was 6 million rupiahs (US$ 600).• These numbers, Coleman argues, are far beyond the capacity of the majority of the population. In 2012 fifty percent of the population still live with less than US$ 2 per day (The Jakarta Post, 2012).
  • 39. So, who has and does not have access to these teachers?• Higher standards than regular schools. Bachelor’s degree holder, ICT literate, fluent in English. Some native • Bachelor’s degree + Teacher Certification speakers. • 37.5% of Indonesian• At least some teachers teachers in 2007 who possess master’s were Bachelor’s and doctoral degrees. degree holders.• Use sophisticated teaching facilities• Great PD support (at least 100 million/year)• Study abroad.
  • 40. An equity problem!• Learning gap between students from the high and low social class in Indonesia will only be wider and wider.• “Indonesian education system is perpetuating social inequalities” (Coleman, 2011, p. 20).
  • 41. Well intended policies create serious inequality impacts• Theory of meritocracy.• Theory of social reproduction.
  • 42. Suggestions• A policy is a blunt instrument.• How can we solve this problem from the policy perspective? Does this problem need to be solved?• Chicken or egg? Quality or Equity?
  • 43. 3 - - 2 - -1• 3 THINGS YOU LEARNED.• 2 POLICY/ FRAMEWORK SUGGESTIONS.• 1 CONNECTION.
  • 44. CLOSING• FINAL THOUGHTS?• MORE QUESTIONS?
  • 45. 감사합니다. Terima Kasih. Thank You.