Benchmarking the way ahead - Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•732 views
The presentation outlines some of the main challenges confronting the inclusive education agenda, and education for development overall, discusses some of the survey tools which could be used to gather and analyse evidence for informed policies and commitments, describes the potential contributions of the OECD to the development agenda, and argues for the need to complement the rights-based approach to disability and inclusiveness with a more technical, evidence based tracks of work.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (10)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Benchmarking the way ahead - Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness
Similar to Benchmarking the way ahead - Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness (20)
More from EduSkills OECD
More from EduSkills OECD (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Benchmarking the way ahead - Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness
- 1. Benchmarking the way ahead Disability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness Bangkok, 14-16 March 2012 Mihaylo Milovanovitch, Directorate for Education OECD
- 2. Structure o Where do we stand o Potential tools for addressing challenges o Benchmarking the way ahead
- 3. Where do we stand?
- 4. Challenge #1: Funding Total Bilateral ODA vs. Expenditures on Education 4 Source: Creditor Reporting System (CRS), OECD
- 5. Funding: top ten education donors in 2008 and their focus Source: OECD
- 6. Funding: which kinds of education have received the support of donors? ODA to education by subsector 2005-2009 14000 12000 Post-Secondary Education 10000 Secondary Education 8000 Basic Education 6000 Education, Level Unspecified 4000 2000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 6 Source: OECD
- 7. Funding: which group of countries? 100% Proportion of Education ODA to MICs (%) 80% Japan France 60% EC Germany United States 40% Canada Italy IDA 20% UK 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion of Education ODA to LICs (%) Source: OECD
- 8. Challenge 2: Equity and fairness of education- SEN students’ socio-economic 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
- 9. Equity: SEN students’ educational experience 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 68.4 Primary (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 1.3 Lower 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 0.0 Upper 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. Source: OECD TALIS 2012 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 Challenge #3: teachers and their preparation ICT teaching skills * 10
- 11. Challenge 4: lack of comparative data and evidence National policy National policy environment #1 Environment #3 Shared policy environment National policy National policy Environment #4 Environment #2 Milovanovitch
- 12. Potential “challenge fitting” tools
- 13. A map of PISA countries and economies 13
- 14. ODA recipients in PISA 14
- 15. Making national evidence and data comparable: the SENDDD resource based model Resource based definition: “Those with special educational needs are defined by the additional public and/or private resources provided to support their education”. Perceived causes of difficulty in accessing the regular curriculum, which determine the need for additional resources: Cross-national category Description Students with disabilities or impairments viewed in A medical terms as organic disorders attributable to organic pathologies (e.g. in relation to sensory, motor or /Disabilities neurological defects). B Students with behavioural or emotional disorders, or specific difficulties in learning. /Difficulties C Students with disadvantages arising primarily from socio-economic, cultural, and/or linguistic factors. /Disadvantages
- 16. Benchmarking the way ahead
- 17. Adjustment of large scale survey instruments (PISA) • Low levels of enrolment at age 15 in ODA countries Relevance • Large share of students perform at lowest levels of proficiency • Reliability of measurement is much lower at the bottom of the performance distribution Reliability • Background questionnaires (student, school Policy principal, parents) would have to be adjusted to reflect different policy realities in ODA countries priorities • Value added gained from participation: very Value costly and capacity intensive added
- 18. New education indicators The Millennium Development Goals uses three education indicators: • Enrolment rates in primary education • Completion rates in primary education • Literacy rates Use of new indicators to assess country’s progress towards development, which can be (largely) implemented in surveys already conducted by national statistical offices
- 19. New education indicators Educational inputs • Proportion of schools with less than 45 students per class or average classroom size or teacher student ratio • Average teacher salary (as a percentage of GDP per capita) • Proportion of schools meeting minimum infrastructure and material resource standards Educational outcomes • Educational attainment (how far students go in the educational system) • Enrolment and completion rates by educational level • Tertiary enrolment in relation to the market relevance and strategic development needs • School-to-work transition, e.g. unemployment by educational level • Educational achievement (how much students know) • International student assessments (PISA, TIMMS, PIRLS) Relevance and lost potential of education • Measuring equity in the distribution of literacy and educational achievement by gender and background characteristics • The migration of highly educated students out of ODA receiving countries (brain drain) should be monitored Structure of national school systems • Promoting the dialogue and collaboration of school systems with similar characteristics
- 20. It is time to “mainstream” the issue of inclusiveness PCPs (Policy Commitments on Paper) are important, but not enough. It is time to take a step further and > agree on what they mean in practice; > notice and analyse good practice, and > create channels for exercising peer pressure between governments Plan steps towards a base of comparative evidence Agree on benchmarking of compliance and implementation of the Convention
- 21. The way ahead: Agree on what, when and how and promote it Define physical accessibility standards Positioning in multilateral commitments The Convention; Agree on a universal international classification framework of Mainstreaming of SENDDD Policy track disabilities & disadvantages Technical track Post- 2015 multilateral agendas in fora of other sectors commitments Set benchmarks of inclusiveness for each “category” and “sub-category” of the framework Lobbying for higher priority of SENDDD-relevant issues in Set a benchmark for resources to ODA spending be invested per SENDDD student and “category”. Benchmark achievement 21 per category
- 22. Thank you mihaylo.milovanovitch@oecd.org www.oecd.org/edu/nme
Editor's Notes
- Moving on to my second question…. Donors, and I mean here DAC members and non DAC members currently allocate about 12% of their total aid to education - forty years ago it was the same proportion but a lot has happened in between these years. This chart takes up to 2006 but the trends shown here have continued in 2007, 2008 and 2009Taking multilateral and bilateral together aid to education has grown at different times…and shrunk: in and out of fashion. See how aid to education barely increased for many years after 1990, despite the commitments made at JomtienAid to education has increased since Dakar in 2000, but still fluctuates to some extent.
- First, the “generosity” of donors towards education varies greatly, and is not necessarily connected to relative GDP levels-US spends less on education than Germany or France, despite comparable national wealth, but rather to political priorities. This is an important message that there is ample scope for lobbying for education in development.Second, development aid for education seems to only modestly, if at all, benefit disabled children. This figure shows that majority of the bigger (and smaller) donors, prefer to invest in post-secondary, or tertiary education – all of them levels which in most developing countries are never reached by SENDDD children who by then have most likely already dropped-out of the formal system of education. A big exception is the US which invests the largest share of its ODA education spending in basic education. I don’t have data on what part of this is meant to support inclusive education projects.
- Here once again confirmation of the same, but on more aggregate level, allowing us to trace the trend over several years, collectively for all donors. You can see that since 2005, while aid to education has increased, donors have continued to prioritise tertiary education in their allocations, despite commitments to do more to support basic education as part of a poverty focused aid agenda. As most developing countries approach universal enrolments at the primary level, partner governments are giving increased priority to Secondary education – but this is not yet reflected in aid allocations and Secondary remains something of a squeezed middle.
- Last but not least, even if we assume that part of the development aid for education, although not very visibly, goes to support the SENDDD agenda, it would appear that it benefits mostly middle-income countries. The UK and the World Bank are exceptions, because they invest in low income countries as well.Given the focus on the MDGs since 2000 and the emphasis on poverty reduction, one would have expected that aid to education would have been concentrated on basic education in the Least Developed Countries where most of the out-of-school children live. This has not been the case
- SEN students tend to come from more disadvantaged backgrounds than non-SEN students.
- Even when in mainstream schools,SEN students have difficulties in coping with the curriculum, and a considerable share of those repeat. SEN students also attend to a lesser extent pre-primary education –characteristics that are considered less favourable to performance.
- This shows the percentage of new and experienced teachers who report high professional development needs in each area across all countries.Teaching students with special need was again the area with the most need for PD (both experienced and new teachers).In Korea and Malaysia, more than half of new teachers said they had a high need for PD for dealing with student behaviour problems (54% and 59% compared to 33% and 40% for experienced teachers)In many countries, twice as many new teachers stated a high new for PD in classroom management skills compared to experienced teachers (including Australia, Belgium, Estonia, Norway, Iceland, Spain).
- In 2009 PISA covered 87% of the world economy, and 28 million students worldwide took the test.
- There is no doubt that providing good quality education is a priority for the developing world. 29 of the 74 PISA participating economies in 2009/2010 were ODA recipients. The DAC List of ODA recipients contains 4 groups: least developed countries, low income countries, lower middle income countries and territories and upper middle income countries and territories. The countries in yellow are countries that have participated in PISA in 2009 or 2010. No country that belongs in the group of “Last Developed Countries”1 country in the “Low Income Countries” group12 countries in the “Lower Middle Income Countries and Territories” groupAnd 16 countries in the “Upper Middle Income Countries and Territories” group
- All OECD countries provide additional resources to help students with disabilities, difficulties and disadvantages access the curriculum and benefit as fully as possible from education. Students with disabilities, difficulties and disadvantages were therefore identified through a supply-side approach based on resources made available. Thus, the definition of special needs education agreed is that “those with special educational needs are defined by the additional public and/or private resources provided to support their education”. The use of this definition in a consistent manner calls for agreement about the term ADDITIONAL and an appreciation of the various kinds of possible RESOURCES PROVIDED which should be considered.“Additional resources” are those made available over and above the resources generally available to students who are unlikely to have particular difficulties in accessing the regular curriculum.Cross-National Category “A/Disabilities”: Students with disabilities or impairments viewed in medical terms as organic disorders attributable to organic pathologies (e.g. in relation to sensory, motor or neurological defects). The educational need is considered to arise primarily from problems attributable to these disabilities.Cross-National Category “B/Difficulties”: Students with behavioural or emotional disorders, or specific difficulties in learning. The educational need is considered to arise primarily from problems in the interaction between the student and the educational context.Cross-National Category “C/Disadvantages”: Students with disadvantages arising primarily from socio-economic, cultural, and/or linguistic factors. The educational need is to compensate for the disadvantages attributable to these factors.The majority of countries use categories to classify their special needs population for the purposes of statistical data gathering. Countries were asked to carry out the task of re-classifying their categories, both national and resource-based, according to this cross-national model. It is not always easy, and definitions and numbers of categories vary greatly between countries, from 2 in the UK and 19 in Belgium, Poland or Switzerland.
- From our perspective, in the context of our “regular” OECD workThen from the perspective of the inclusive education communityI must admit that I have a problem with this distinction, but I must also share with you the impression, that it unfortunately seems to reflect the reality. There are the inclusive education professionals and believers. And the rest of the world. This is a problem on many levels.
- There are some challenges for ODA recipients which participate or want to participate in PISA. The OECD is currently working on ways to address them.Although in OECD countries and current PISA members almost all 15-year-olds are enrolled in schools, in many developing countries enrolment is not universal at this age. Students who are enrolled in school at age 15 are generally more privileged than students that are out of school. Secondly, reliability of measurement is by definition much lower at the bottom of performance distribution, which is not problematic for the OECD countries, but can invalidate measurement for low performing developing countries. PISA has already made progress in this area though the option of including additional test questions aimed at assessing performance at very low levels of proficiency to increase the reliability of measurement for low performing students. Some countries successfully used this option, e.g. Colombia in PISA 2009. The PISA assessment framework could be developed further to include definitions of skills at very low proficiency levels. Thirdly, Background questionnaires (student, school principal, parents) would have to be adjusted to reflect different policy realities in developing countries. PISA already offers high flexibility in adjusting background questionnaires, but the full potential of this option will depend on how well the adjustments address policy priorities or policy instruments that are crucial for developing countries. While the high quality and the high standards of PISA have ensured its success and relevance, they also involve a considerable financial and logistical effort on national level, which can be costly.
- An OECD strength and potential area of contribution to the development agenda is indicators and benchmarks. The OECD proposes the introduction of new indicators to measure progress towards development, which is part of the comprehensive OECD Development Strategy which will be implemented from 2013. The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) use only three education indicators: enrolment and completion rates in primary education and literacy rates. The OECD suggest new indicators to assess country’s progress towards development and to provide indicators to assess the effectiveness of ODA. We will see those indicators in detail in the next slides. Many new indicators can be implemented in surveys conducted by national statistical offices.
- The proposal of education indicators is articulated in terms of educational inputs, educational outcomes, the relevance and lost potential of education. Another set of proposed indicators seeks to characterise the structure of national school systems.Let me quickly go through them one by one. Education input variables contain information about what is invested in education, financially and materially. Research highlights that educational inputs impact student learning in different phases. Students benefit from material resources until a threshold of sufficient resources is met. When the basic educational necessities are met (e.g. students have a safe classroom, textbooks, desks, a teacher and a manageable classroom size) the value added of other material resources is weak. After these basic necessities are met, schools’ teachers become the most important resource to promote student learning. A country’s ability to attract good students into the teaching profession may signal the quality of the teaching workforce. New indicators which could be used to measure those factors are (read 3 points) School systems are called upon to produce student learning and several indicators exist to measure educational outcomes. These are generally divided into indicators that measures educational attainment (how far students go in the educational system) and educational achievement (how much students know). ). These indicators signal the first steps towards progress to a better educational system. The proposed indicators complement the MDG indicators by highlighting attainment and achievement measures once these literacy and enrolment and completion rates reach a universal level. As new indictors for educational attainment we propose (read bullet points of slide). Educational achievement can best be measured in a comparative perspective by international student assessments, such as PISA, TIMMS and PIRLS. The third group are indicators that mirror relevance or lost potential of education. Education contributes to development not only through the improvement of students’ educational outcomes, but also through the equitable distribution of these outcomes. Inequities in education mean that students’ potential is not fully developed.Special attention should be given to measuring equity in the distribution of literacy and educational achievement by gender and background characteristics.The migration of highly educated students out of developing nations (brain drain) should be monitored, particular in areas defined by countries to have strategic importance. Last but not least indicators describing the structure of the education system. A set of policy indicators can promote the implementation of successful reforms towards educational progress and development by promoting the dialogue and collaboration of school systems with similar characteristics.