Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Immigrant Students at School: Easing the Journey towards Integration

16,924 views

Published on

How school systems respond to immigration has an enormous impact on the economic and social well-being of all members of the communities they serve, whether they have an immigrant background or not. Immigrant Students at School: Easing the Journey towards Integration reveals some of the difficulties immigrant students encounter – and some of the contributions they offer – as they settle into their new communities and new schools. Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) indicate that students with an immigrant background tend to perform worse in school than students without an immigrant background. Several factors are associated with this disparity, including the concentration of disadvantage in the schools immigrant students attend, language barriers and certain school policies, like grade repetition and tracking, that can hinder immigrant students’ progress through school. But successful integration is measured in more than academic achievement; immigrant students’ well-being and hopes for the future are just as telling. This report examines not only immigrant students’ aspirations and sense of belonging at school, but also recent trends in Europeans’ receptiveness to welcoming immigrants into their own countries – the context that could make all the difference in how well immigrant students integrate into their new communities. The report includes a special section on refugees and education, and an extensive discussion on education policy responses to immigration.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Immigrant Students at School: Easing the Journey towards Integration

  1. 1. 11 Immigrants at School Immigrant Students at School Easing the Journey towards Integration Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills
  2. 2. 22 Poverty is not destiny PISA Math skills of 15-year-olds by decile of social background 300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675 Mexico Chile Greece Norway Sweden Iceland Israel Italy UnitedStates Spain Denmark Luxembourg Australia Ireland UnitedKingdom Hungary Canada Finland Austria Turkey Liechtenstein CzechRepublic Estonia Portugal Slovenia SlovakRepublic NewZealand Germany Netherlands France Switzerland Poland Belgium Japan Macao-China HongKong-China Korea Singapore ChineseTaipei Shanghai-China Source: PISA 2012
  3. 3. Are our schools prepared to help immigrant students integrate into their new communities? Even before this latest influx, the population of immigrant students in OECD countries had been growing. In 2012, 11% of 15-year-old students had an immigrant background, on average across OECD countries. Between 2003 and 2012, the share of immigrant students had grown by between 4 and 6 percentage points in Ireland, Italy and Spain 3
  4. 4. 4 Relationship between the percentage of immigrant students and a school system’s average performance in reading Australia Austria Belgium Canada Estonia Finland France Germany Iceland Ireland Israel Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Switzerland United States OECD average Argentina Costa Rica Croatia Hong Kong-China Jordan Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Malaysia Montenegro Russian Federation Serbia Singapore 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Percentage of 15-year-old immigrant students PISA Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 7 No relationship between share of immigrant students and learning outcomes (even after accounting for disadvantage) No negative impact of increase in immigration on PISA performance (2003-2012)
  5. 5. High aspirations In some countries the share of disadvantaged students who perform among the top quarter of all PISA students is larger among immigrant students than among non-immigrants Most immigrant students hold an ambition to succeed that matches, and sometimes surpasses, the aspirations of families in their host country 5
  6. 6. 6 Disadvantaged students who are top performers 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mexico Argentina CostaRica Qatar Jordan UnitedArabEmirates Kazakhstan Greece Iceland Montenegro Portugal Denmark Malaysia Sweden Norway Finland Spain RussianFederation NewZealand France Austria Belgium Israel Slovenia Latvia Italy OECDaverage Croatia Serbia UnitedKingdom Luxembourg UnitedStates Germany CzechRepublic Liechtenstein Netherlands Switzerland Estonia Canada Ireland Australia Singapore Macao-China HongKong-China % Immigrants Non-immigrants Percentage of disadvantaged students performing among the top quarter of all students in mathematics, by immigrant status
  7. 7. 7 Percentage of first-generation immigrant students with at least one parent as educated as the average parent of non-immigrant students in the host country 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Greece-48.5 Mexico UnitedStates Austria HongKong-China-… Luxembourg-5.0 France Switzerland Denmark Finland Norway Macao-China-18.0 Sweden Daverage2003 Belgium11.5 Liechtenstein Netherlands Portugal Australia NewZealand-16.7 Germany sianFederation Ireland-20.4 Spain CzechRepublic Italy Canada6.8 %
  8. 8. There is remarkable cross-country variation in performance between immigrant students and students without an immigrant background, even after accounting for socio-economic status Immigrant students’ performance is more strongly (and negatively) associated with the concentration of socio-economic disadvantage in schools than with the concentration of immigrants or of students who speak a different language at home than the language in which they are taught. 8
  9. 9. 9 Immigrant students’ performance in mathematics 300 400 500 600 Mexico Brazil Argentina CostaRica Greece Kazakhstan Sweden Jordan Chile France Finland Montenegro Denmark Slovenia Italy Spain Iceland Serbia Norway Qatar Belgium Portugal OECDaverage Croatia Austria Germany Russian… UnitedStates Israel Luxembourg Netherlands Switzerland CzechRepublic UnitedArab… UnitedKingdom Liechtenstein Ireland NewZealand Shanghai-China Australia Canada Macao-China HongKong-China Singapore Mean score First-generation Non-immigrant Second-generation
  10. 10. The culture and the education acquired before migrating have an impact on student performance… …but the country where students settle matters more 10
  11. 11. 11 Second generation immigrant students’ performance in mathematics, by country of origin and destination 370.0 390.0 410.0 430.0 450.0 470.0 490.0 510.0 Austria Belgium Switzerland Germany Denmark Netherlands Austria Belgium Switzerland Germany Denmark Netherlands PISA score points in mathematics First-generation immigrants' score, after accounting for socio-economic status 2nd generation students from Turkey in: Country of origin and country of destination 1st generation students from Turkey in: First generation immigrant students’ performance in mathematics, by country of origin and destination
  12. 12. 12 Immigrant students’ performance in mathematics, by country of origin and destination 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Australia Macao-China New Zealand Hong Kong-China Qatar Finland Denmark United Arab Emirates Netherlands PISA score points in mathematics First-generation immigrants' score, after accounting for socio-economic status Students from Arabic-speaking countries in: Students from China in: 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 Denmark Qatar United Arab Emirates Netherlands Finland % Percentage of students with an immigrant background who reported that they feel like they belong at school Country of origin and country of destination Students from Arabic-speaking countries in:
  13. 13. 13 Percentage of second-generation immigrant students who reported that they feel like they belong at school 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 France Montenegro Belgium Macao-China Brazil CzechRepublic Ireland Denmark HongKong-China Luxembourg Italy RussianFederation Sweden OECDaverage Mexico Germany Qatar UnitedStates UnitedKingdom Canada Switzerland Australia Singapore Slovenia Argentina Jordan UnitedArabEmirates Netherlands Austria Croatia NewZealand Finland Portugal CostaRica Greece Serbia Norway Kazakhstan Israel Spain
  14. 14. What the hosts think 14
  15. 15. 15 Individual reports on whether the country is made a worse or better place to live by immigrants 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Russian Federation Portugal Slovak Republic Italy Czech Republic Hungary France Israel Belgium United Kingdom Slovenia Estonia Lithuania Average Bulgaria Spain Germany Switzerland Netherlands Ireland Finland Norway Poland Albania Denmark Sweden Iceland Mean score Worse place Better place
  16. 16. 16 Allow many or few immigrants from poorer countries outside of Europe 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Hungary Israel(0.69) CzechRepublic(0.35) Portugal UnitedKingdom(0.21) Slovenia Finland Denmark(-0.17) Average(-0.03) France(-0.12) Ireland(0.07) Spain(-0.38) Netherlands Switzerland Belgium(-0.18) Italy Poland(-0.43) Norway(-0.1) Germany(-0.27) Sweden(-0.22) 2012 2000 Allow few Allow many
  17. 17. 17 Allow many/few immigrants of different or same race/ethnic group from majority 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Sweden Norway Germany Poland Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Spain France Italy Slovenia Finland Average UnitedKingdom Portugal CzechRepublic Hungary Israel Same 2012 Different 2012 Same 2000 Different 2000 Allow few Allow many
  18. 18. 18 Attitudes towards migrants based on perceptions of the state of the economy Albania Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland Czech Republic GermanyDenmark Estonia Spain Finland France United Kingdom Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Italy Lithuania Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Sweden Slovenia Slovak Republic Ukraine R² = 0.32 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad for the economy Good for the economy Perceptions on the economic value of migrants Completely satisfied Completely dissatisfied Satisfactionwiththestateofthe economy
  19. 19. 19 Attitudes towards migrants based on perceptions of the state of the education system Albania Belgium Bulgaria Switzerland Czech Republic Germany Denmark Estonia Spain Finland France United Kingdom Hungary Ireland Israel Iceland Italy Lithuania Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Sweden Slovenia Slovak Republic Ukraine Kosovo R² = 0.26 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Undermined Enriched Extremely bad Extremely good Perception of the state of the education system... Contributionofmigrantstoculturallife...
  20. 20. The double disadvantage 20
  21. 21. 21 Performance gap -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Shanghai-China Peru Colombia Mexico Finland Brazil Belgium Switzerland Denmark Liechtenstein Sweden Portugal France Spain Netherlands Austria Italy Iceland Estonia Norway Greece Slovenia Germany OECDaverage CzechRepublic RussianFederation Argentina CostaRica Chile Latvia Luxembourg Croatia UnitedKingdom Turkey Ireland Malaysia Kazakhstan Lithuania ChineseTaipei NewZealand Canada SlovakRepublic Singapore HongKong-China Hungary Serbia UnitedStates Jordan Israel Montenegro Macao-China Thailand Australia UnitedArabEmirates Qatar Score-point difference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status Difference in mathematics performance between non-immigrant and immigrant students
  22. 22. 22 Percentage of immigrant students in schools where at least half of the students are immigrants 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 HongKong-China Germany Argentina Switzerland Slovenia Israel Netherlands NewZealand Belgium UnitedStates France Spain OECDaverage Luxembourg Kazakhstan Austria UnitedKingdom Australia Sweden Macao-China Norway Denmark Italy Canada Greece Qatar UnitedArab…
  23. 23. 23 Percentage of immigrant students who do not speak the language of assessment at home 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Croatia Montenegro Chile CostaRica Kazakhstan Serbia Macao-China Jordan RussianFederation Argentina HongKong-China Mexico Brazil Australia Liechtenstein Shanghai-China Portugal Spain UnitedArabEmirates Belgium Ireland NewZealand Qatar Greece Switzerland France Canada OECDaverage UnitedKingdom Denmark Netherlands Luxembourg Germany Austria UnitedStates Italy Norway Singapore Israel Sweden Slovenia CzechRepublic Iceland Finland % First-generation immigrant Second-generation immigrant
  24. 24. 24 Percentage of students who do not speak the language of assessment at home and who participate in at least two hours of training per week to improve their skills in the language of assessment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Slovenia Serbia Germany Finland Portugal Austria Italy OECDaverage(12) Ireland Belgium Luxembourg Denmark SlovakRepublic Canada Latvia HongKong-China Singapore % All students Between 0 and 4 years old when arrived 10 years old or more when arrived
  25. 25. 25 Difference between first generation immigrant students and non-immigrant students in the likelihood of being enrolled in a vocational track 0 1 2 3 4 UnitedArabEmirates Austria France Netherlands Kazakhstan Spain Mexico Shanghai-China Slovenia Belgium Switzerland Croatia Greece CostaRica Luxembourg Ireland Portugal Italy CzechRepublic Australia Serbia OECDaverage Montenegro Macao-China Germany Israel Argentina RussianFederation UnitedKingdom Chile Odds ratio After accounting for students' socio-economic status and performance Before accounting for students' socio-economic status and performance First-generation immigrant students are more likely to attend a vocational study track First-generation immigrant students are less likely to attend a vocational study track 4.7 6.5
  26. 26. The importance of early integration 26
  27. 27. 27 Reading performance of immigrant students, by attendance at pre-primary education 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Brazil Mexico35 Malaysia CostaRica Kazakhstan36 Qatar48 Jordan34 Montenegro Greece Slovenia Spain52 Sweden67 Italy88 RussianFederation… Portugal49 Luxembourg40 OECDaverage49 Switzerland Croatia Serbia UnitedArab… NewZealand90 Macao-China81 Ireland Canada45 Australia54 Had attended pre-primary education Had not attended pre-primary educationMean score
  28. 28. 28 Difference in the likelihood of having attended pre-primary education between immigrant students and non-immigrant students 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 CzechRepublic Thailand Italy Denmark Brazil Argentina Greece Netherlands NewZealand Switzerland Mexico Germany Ireland France Spain Singapore Malaysia CostaRica Latvia UnitedKingdom Australia RussianFederation UnitedArabEmirates Luxembourg Portugal UnitedStates Kazakhstan Croatia Finland OECDAverage Sweden Iceland Jordan Qatar Belgium Macao-China Austria Montenegro Serbia HongKong-China Israel Estonia Slovenia Canada Lithuania Norway Turkey Odds ratio After accounting for students' socio-economic status Immigrant students are more likely to have attended pre- primary education Immigrant students are less likely to have attended pre-primary education
  29. 29. Narrowing the performance gap 29
  30. 30. 30 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance, by immigrant background -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Finland France Mexico Belgium-27 Denmark Sweden Switzerland Germany Austria Netherlands Liechtenstein Spain Greece Italy28 Norway OECDaverage2003 Portugal Luxembourg RussianFederation UnitedStates HongKong-China-18 CzechRepublic Ireland NewZealand Canada Macao-China-22 Australia-15 PISA 2012 PISA 2003 Score-point difference Difference between non-immigrants and first-generation immigrant students
  31. 31. 31 Change between 2003 and 2012 in mathematics performance, by immigrant background -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Belgium-23 Denmark France Switzerland Austria Mexico Netherlands Germany-43 Portugal Sweden Luxembourg Norway Spain OECDaverage2003 Italy RussianFederation NewZealand Canada14 UnitedStates Latvia Ireland HongKong-China Macao-China Australia-41 Score-pointdifference Difference between non-immigrants and second-generation immigrant students PISA 2012 PISA 2003
  32. 32. 32 Percentage of lower secondary teachers indicating they have a high level of need for professional development in the area of teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Netherlands Australia Latvia Singapore UnitedStates CzechRepublic Finland Poland Denmark Norway SlovakRepublic Iceland Estonia Serbia Malaysia Japan Sweden Croatia France Israel Bulgaria Portugal Korea Spain Romania Chile Italy Mexico Brazil % Teachers looking for help
  33. 33. 33 Percentage of students in schools where the principal reports that ethnic diversity hinders learning 0 5 10 15 20 25 Montenegro Macao-China Poland ChineseTaipei CzechRepublic Shanghai-China CostaRica Turkey Japan Kazakhstan HongKong-China Peru Finland Tunisia UnitedKingdom Netherlands Portugal Colombia SlovakRepublic Brazil Romania Canada Uruguay Chile Denmark Argentina Israel Australia Hungary Mexico Ireland OECDaverage Italy NewZealand Sweden Austria Bulgaria Luxembourg UnitedArabEmirates Jordan Croatia UnitedStates Spain Thailand VietNam Norway Slovenia Germany Singapore Switzerland Malaysia Iceland Greece Indonesia France Belgium Qatar Avantaged schools Disadvantaged schools All schools %
  34. 34. Policy responses Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes High cost/complexity Low cost/complexity Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Language integration Early ECEC Parent engagement Building capacity Limiting tracking and grade repetition Limiting congregation in disadvantaged schools Monitoring
  35. 35. Policy responses Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes High cost/complexity Low cost/complexity Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Language integration Early ECEC Parent engagement Building capacity Limiting tracking and grade repetition Limiting congregation in disadvantaged schools Monitoring Students seem to acquire a new language faster when they are immersed in that language from the outset, rather than placed in separate language classes. Language tuition is beneficial, but only when it is in addition to regular classroom instruction, such as in after-school classes and during holiday breaks.
  36. 36. Policy responses Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes High cost/complexity Low cost/complexity Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Language integration Early ECEC Parent engagement Building capacity Limiting tracking and grade repetition Limiting congregation in disadvantaged schools Monitoring If children enter such programmes at the age of 2 or 3 they have a chance of starting school at almost the same level as non-immigrant children. Targeted home visits can help families to support their child’s learning at home and can also ease entry into appropriate education services
  37. 37. Policy responses Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes High cost/complexity Low cost/complexity Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Language integration Early ECEC Parent engagement Building capacity Limiting tracking and grade repetition Limiting congregation in disadvantaged schools Monitoring While many classrooms are now filled with immigrants, the teachers in these classrooms are often ill-prepared in pedagogical approaches for second-language learning or in recognising and helping children overcome the effects of trauma that many immigrant children endure.
  38. 38. Policy responses Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes High cost/complexity Low cost/complexity Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Language integration Early ECEC Parent engagement Building capacity Limiting tracking and grade repetition Limiting congregation in disadvantaged schools Monitoring Schools that struggle to do well for domestic students struggle even more with a large population of immigrant. Countries that distribute migrant students across a mix of schools achieve better outcomes for these students. A more even distribution also relieves the pressure on schools and teachers when large numbers of immigrant students arrive over a short period of time
  39. 39. Policy responses Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes High cost/complexity Low cost/complexity Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Language integration Early ECEC Parent engagement Building capacity Limiting tracking and grade repetition Limiting congregation in disadvantaged schools Monitoring While teachers are critical to migrant students’ success in schools, so are their parents. Students do better when their parents understand the importance of schooling, how the school system works, and how best to support their child’s progress through school.
  40. 40. Policy responses Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes High cost/complexity Low cost/complexity Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Language integration Early ECEC Parent engagement Building capacity Limiting tracking and grade repetition Limiting congregation in disadvantaged schools Monitoring Targeted funding While ability grouping, grade repetition and tracking reinforce social background for non- immigrant students, immigrant students are even more likely to be affected by these practices. Language difficulties and cultural differences can be misinterpreted as lack of ability and potential.
  41. 41. www.oecd.org/edu Andreas.Schleicher@oecd.org Follow us on: @OECDEduSkills @EduSkills OECD @EduSkills OECD

×