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.
Model Call Girl in Bikash Puri Delhi reach out to us at 🔝9953056974🔝
Immigrant Students at School: Easing the Journey towards Integration
1. 11 Immigrants at School
Immigrant Students at School
Easing the Journey towards Integration
Andreas Schleicher
Director for Education and Skills
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. 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
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. 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 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
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. 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 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. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.