Policy Options for Achieving Greater Equity and Quality in Education
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•397 views
equity in education policies and practices
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Policy Options for Achieving Greater Equity and Quality in Education
Similar to Policy Options for Achieving Greater Equity and Quality in Education (20)
More from Beatriz Pont
More from Beatriz Pont (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Policy Options for Achieving Greater Equity and Quality in Education
- 1. Policy options for greater equity and quality in education: a comparative perspective Beatriz Pont Senior Education Policy Analyst
- 2. Investing in equity in education is key PIKETTY (2014) Increasing wealth inequalities (r>g) have negative consequences. Knowledge and skills diffusion are key to productivity growth and reduction of inequality. For greater convergence in growth, need for progressive wealth tax and invest in education and skills for the more disadvantaged. CINGANO (2014) Income inequality has negative impact on further growth Wider gaps in income prevent skills development among low SES and generate more inequality and prevent growth Inequality affects growth: Undermining education opportunities for low SES children. lowering social mobility and hampering skills development.
- 3. Individual and societal benefits of raising skills Source: OECD (2013), PIAAC. Likelihood of positive outcomes among highly literate adults, PIAAC 2012
- 4. 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 and new economic data has brought equity to the forefront Reducing school failure pays off
- 5. Challenge: Around 1 in 4 15-year-olds do not reach a minimum level of skills (PISA 2012) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mexico Turkey Greece Hungary SlovakRepublic Sweden UnitedStates Portugal Italy Luxembourg Spain NewZealand France Norway OECDaverage2003 Iceland CzechRepublic Australia Belgium Austria Germany Ireland Denmark Netherlands Poland Canada Switzerland Finland Japan Korea % of students below proficiency Level 2 Percentage of students below Level 2 in 2012 Percentage of students below Level 2 in 2003 Source: OECD PISA 2012 Database.
- 6. Challenge: The impact of background on performance is strong (PISA 2012) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Hungary New… France Israel Belgium Germany Luxembourg Chile Denmark Austria Portugal Czech… Spain Poland OECD… Australia Ireland Switzerland Greece Slovenia United… Netherlands Japan Sweden Italy Finland United… Mexico Canada Norway Turkey Korea Iceland Estonia Students in the bottom quarter of the ESCS index Immigrant students Source: OECD PISA 2012 Database. Relative risk of scoring in bottom quarter in PISA mathematics 2012
- 7. Challenge: The share of those who do not complete remains high (EAG 2014) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mexico Turkey Portugal Spain Italy Iceland Chile1 NewZealand Denmark Belgium Norway OECDaverage Greece Netherlands France UnitedKingdom Ireland Luxembourg Estonia Australia Germany Hungary Austria UnitedStates Switzerland Finland Israel Sweden Canada CzechRepublic SlovakRepublic Slovenia Poland Korea % 25-34 55-64 % of those who have not completed upper secondary education, 2012 Source: OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, Table A1.2a.
- 8. High performing systems combine quality with equity (PISA 2012) Chile Hungary Slovak Republic Portugal Luxembourg France New Zealand Belgium Israel Germany TurkeyGreece Spain United Kingdom Czech Republic Denmark Slovenia Ireland Austria Switzerland Poland United States Netherlands EstoniaFinland Japan Sweden Australia Canada Iceland Norway Mexico Korea Italy 350 400 450 500 550 600 051015202530 Meanmathematicsscore Percentage of variation in performance explained by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status OECD average OECD average Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities
- 9. Slovak Republic Czech Republic Estonia Israel Poland Korea Portugal New Zealand Canada Germany Spain France Italy FinlandJapan Slovenia Ireland Iceland Netherlands Sweden Belgium United Kingdom Australia Denmark United States Austria Norway Switzerland Luxembourg Turkey Mexico Chile Hungary R² = 0.00 400 450 500 550 600 0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 MathematicsperformanceonPISA2012 Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs) It is how money is invested that matters Source: OECD (2015), Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen. Spending per student and average math performance, PISA 2012
- 10. Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 11 Making effective reforms happen is key 1 1 Funding grants Subsidies for disadvantaged schools Reforms in school leadership and teachers Support to students from specific populations Setting national priorities for education New middle school reform National commitment to ECEC School improvement VET reforms Teacher training reform OECD countries are using different policy options to improve their education systems… School evaluation reform Student funding But only around 1 in 10 reported evaluation to gauge impact
- 11. Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1212 There are clear common policy trends across countries Key policies implemented across OECD countries by policy lever, 2008-14 (based on countries’ self reports) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Equity and quality Preparing students for the future School improvement Evaluation and assessment Governance Funding % Students: Raising Outcomes Institutions: Enhancing quality Systems: Governing effectively
- 12. Policies to achieve more equitable education systems Source: OECD PISA 2012. Invest early and through upper secondary Support low performing disadvantaged schools Eliminate system level obstacles to equity
- 13. Avoid system level policies that hinder equity More equitable system level policies ECEC Australia/Cana da/Chile/Mexi co/Nordic/Fran ce/Spain Comprehensiv e 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/Netherla nds/Australia/ Ontario Source: OECD PISA 2012.
- 14. 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
- 15. Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland GermanyGreece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK USA R² = 0.1735 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 School competition More social inclusio Lesssocial inclusion % Netherlands: Control on the local level with quota / Nijmegen: central subscription system Belgium (Flemish community): Inter-Network Enrolment Commission School competition and social inclusion, PISA 2012 Managing school choice to prevent segregation
- 16. Fairness in allocation of resources: better results USA Poland New Zealand Greece UK Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. Luxembourg Germany Austria Czech Rep. France Japan Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel Canada Ireland Chile Belgium Netherlands Spain Denmark Switzerland Iceland Slovenia Portugal Norway Mexico Korea Italy R² = 0.30 R² = 0.33 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 -0.5-0.3-0.10.10.30.50.70.91.11.31.5 Mathematicsperformance(scorepoints) Equity in resource allocation (index-point difference) - Less equity Allocation of resources and PISA mathematics performance, PISA , 2012 Source: OECD PISA 2012. Netherlands: Performance-based budgeting in secondary, vocational and tertiary education (if institution reduces drop out) Australia: Review of Funding for Schooling (2011) Chile: Law on Preferential Subsidies (2008) UK England: Pupil premium
- 17. 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 Demanding learning environment Inadequate support systems Disadvantaged students and schools face concrete challenges
- 18. Students may have different opportunities depending on schools they attend 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 20 Relative risk of scoring in the bottom quarter of the performance distribution, PISA 2012
- 19. Support disadvantaged students and 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
- 20. General strategies to support school improvement Source: OECD PISA 2012. -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Mexico Portugal Canada Iceland UnitedStates Chile Turkey UnitedKingdom Denmark Australia Switzerland NewZealand Sweden Israel Ireland OECDaverage Spain Hungary Luxembourg Estonia Finland Belgium Korea Greece Norway Austria Netherlands Italy CzechRepublic Japan France SlovakRepublic Germany Slovenia Poland Mean index Index of teacher-student relations Index of disciplinary climate Mexico: PEC (2010-13) Australia: Students First 2014 New Zealand: Student Achievement Function (2010) UK: Wales: School Improveme nt 2012 N. Ireland: ESGS 2009 Ireland: National Strategy to I mprove Literacy and Numeracy (2011) Norway: Better Learni ng Environment (2009- 14)
- 21. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Estonia Iceland Korea Turkey Norway Canada Mexico UnitedKingdom Finland Italy Sweden Japan Netherlands UnitedStates Slovenia Greece Switzerland Ireland Australia OECDaverage Poland Spain CzechRepublic Portugal Austria Denmark Chile Luxembourg Germany Belgium Israel France NewZealand Hungary SlovakRepublic Ratio Increased likelihood of students in the bottom quarter of the ESCS index scoring in the bottom quarter of the mathematics performance distribution Increased likelihood of immigrant students scoring in the bottom quarter of the mathematics performance distribution OECD average New Zealand: Policies to support Māori/Pasifika populations (2008-13) France/Portugal: Education Priority Zones Austria: New middle school reform Germany: National Action Plan on Integration (2011) Finland: National Core Curriculum for Instruction Preparing Immigrants for Basic Education (2009) Australia: Smarter schools partnership for disadvantaged schools Aboriginal torres islanders action plan. Strategies to support disadvantaged schools and students Source: OECD PISA 2012.
- 22. Reforms to support the teaching profession 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Korea Finland Mexico Alberta(Canada) Flanders(Belgium) Netherlands Australia England(UK) Israel UnitedStates Chile Average Norway Japan Denmark Poland Iceland Estonia Brazil Italy CzechRepublic Portugal Spain Sweden France SlovakRepublic Percentageofteachers Netherlands: Teachers’ Programme 2013-20 (2013) Australia: Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2010) Finland: OSAAVA programme (2010-16) Korea: Evaluation system (2010) Mexico: Teacher Professional Service (2013) France: Reform of teacher training programmes (2013) Source: OECD (2014), TALIS. . % lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession in society, TALIS 2014
- 23. 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.
- 24. Main sources for further information Education Policy Outlook www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlo ok.htmwww.oecd.org/edu/equity
- 25. For further information Beatriz Pont, beatrizpont02@gmail.com @beatrizpont www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htm www.oecd.org/pisa
Editor's Notes
- 2. The future of wealth concentration: with high r - g during 21c (r = net-of-tax rate of return, g = growth rate), then wealth inequality might reach or surpass 19c oligarchic levels; conversely, suitable institutions can allow to democratize wealth. = in slow-growth societies, the total stock of wealth accumulated in the past can naturally be very important → capital is back because low growth is back (in particular because population growth↓0) → in the long run, this can be relevant for the entire planet In all European countries (UK, France, Sweden…), wealth concentration was extremely high in 18c -19c & until WW1: about 90% of aggregate wealth for top 10% wealth holders about 60% of aggregate wealth for top 1% wealth-holders = the classic patrimonial (wealth-based) society: a minority lives off its wealth, while the rest of the populaton works (Austen, Balzac) • Today wealth concentration is still very high, but less extreme: about 60-70% for top 10%; about 20-30% for top 1% the bottom 50% still owns almost nothing (
- Move to before 12
- The recovery from the financial crisis has been slow and national governments are working hard to tackle unemployment, address inequality and promote competitiveness. Increasingly they are turning to education in seeking to restore long-term and inclusive economic growth.
- 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.
- Policy action 1.4: Revise school choice arrangements to ensure quality with equity. Improve disadvantaged families’ access to information about schools and support them in making informed choices. In addition, introduce controlled choice schemes that combine parental choice and ensure a more diverse distribution of students at schools. Consider defining national guidelines to ensure that municipalities integrate independent schools in their planning, improvement and support strategies to encourage a culture of collaboration and peer learning.
- 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.
- 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.