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.
Quality education for allDisability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness – aworkshop contributionBangkok, 14-16 March 201...
Percentage of population                                0                                    10                           ...
Structureo Good education = equitable educationo What do we know about the quality & equity ofeducation for SENDDD childre...
Good education = equitable education
High reading performance                                                              Shanghai-China        Shanghai-China...
Quality & equity of education for       SENDDD children
Sources of comparative informationo Programme for International Student Assessment –PISA (2003 and 2006)o Data collection ...
The socio-economic background of SEN students          in SEE and the Baltic, 2006      School grade of 15 year olds who t...
SEN students’ educational            experience and expectations                                                          ...
The socio-economic background of SEN students          in SEE and the Baltic, 2006                       Family background...
Comparison of student mathematics performance                                        by SEN status                        ...
0                                                                   100                                                   ...
Policy options
Improving equity and reducing school failure is a                       policy priorityAll countries are confronted with e...
Support disadvantaged and inclusive schools                       • Initial school leadership training; attractive working...
20%                                                                          30%                                    0%    ...
Score point difference                                              0                                        -20          ...
So, what can be done?           Identify the student            population at risk,          and cater to its needsElimina...
score                                                       Mean                         300                              ...
The challenge: to reduce the risk of low achievement due to                   personal circumstances (fairness)           ...
Quality education for all –UNESCAP/LCD Conference on Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness: a workshop contribu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Quality education for all –UNESCAP/LCD Conference on Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness: a workshop contribution

1,165 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Quality education for all –UNESCAP/LCD Conference on Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness: a workshop contribution

  1. 1. Quality education for allDisability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness – aworkshop contributionBangkok, 14-16 March 2012Mihaylo MilovanovitchOECD Directorate For Education
  2. 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 StatesSource: 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. 3. Structureo Good education = equitable educationo What do we know about the quality & equity ofeducation for SENDDD children?o Policy options
  4. 4. Good education = equitable education
  5. 5. High reading performance Shanghai-China Shanghai-China 560 High average performance Korea KoreaHigh average performance Finland Finland High social equity 540Hong Kong-China Hong Kong-ChinaLarge 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 Portugalstudent 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 ChileLow average performance Serbia Serbia average performance LowLarge socio-economic disparities High social equity 440 55 45 35 25 15 Low reading performance
  6. 6. Quality & equity of education for SENDDD children
  7. 7. Sources of comparative informationo Programme for International Student Assessment –PISA (2003 and 2006)o Data collection and comparisons through the OECDSENDDD frameworko Qualitative research in the framework of the No MoreFailures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education OECD project.o Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Source: OECD PISA 2003
  8. 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. 9. SEN students’ 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 68.4Primary (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 1.3Lower 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 0.0Upper 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. 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. 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 35Source: OECD PISA 2003 Percentage of students
  12. 12. 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 inSource: OECD PISA 2006; Note: data has limited statistical significance due to small sample
  13. 13. Policy options
  14. 14. Improving equity and reducing school failure is a policy priorityAll 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
  15. 15. Support disadvantaged and inclusive schools • Initial school leadership training; attractive working School leadership conditions to attract and retain competent leaders • Restructure schools when needed • School plans to prioritise school climate and positive relationships, discipline alone not effective School climate • Support students • Alternative organisation of distribution of learning time • Provide specialised initial teacher education Quality teaching • Ensure incentives and working conditions, time for planning, working together, mentoring • Support culture of high expectations • Provide teacher support on how to tailorClassroom strategies instruction, assessment and curricular practices to needs of disadvantaged schools and students Parental and • Need to prioritize with select communication strategies community • Provide guidelines to parents on their role engagement • Foster closer links with communities and mentors
  16. 16. 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 * • SEN is named as area of greatest need for professional Teaching in a multicultural setting TALIS 2012 - Teacher training ICT teaching skills *17
  17. 17. 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 students’ socio-economic Netherlands Bulgaria Argentina Austria Singapore Difference between observed and predicted performance in Germany Hungary SloveniaSource: OECD PISA 2009 Trinidad and Tobago
  18. 18. So, what can be done? Identify the student population at risk, and cater to its needsEliminate system Supportlevel obstacles to disadvantaged or equity challenged schools
  19. 19. 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 GermanySource: 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
  20. 20. 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 1.0Low 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

×