Quality education for allDisability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness – a workshop contributionBangkok, 14-16 March 2012

Mihaylo MilovanovitchOECD Directorate For Education

The challenge

% of people who have not completed upper secondary education by age group

Kor

eaSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Cze

ch R

epub

licPo

land

Slov

enia

Can

ada

Swed

enFi

nlan

dSw

itzer

land

Aus

tria

Uni

ted

Stat

esIs

rael

Esto

nia

Ger

man

yH

unga

ryIre

land

Den

mar

kC

hile

Fran

ceLu

xem

bour

gN

orw

ayB

elgi

umA

ustr

alia

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

OEC

D a

vera

geN

ew Z

eala

ndG

reec

eIta

lyIc

elan

dSp

ain

Port

ugal

Mex

ico

Turk

ey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8025-34 25-64

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

po

pu

lati

on

Source: OECD PISA 2009

Structure

o Good education = equitable education

o What do we know about the quality & equity of education for SENDDD children?

o Policy options

Good education = equitable education

Low average performance

Large socio-economic disparities

High average performance

Large socio-economic disparities

Low average performance

High social equity

High average performance

High social equity

Strong socio-economic impact on

student performance

Socially equitable distribution of

learning opportunities

High reading performance

Low reading performance

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

1525354555

Shanghai- China

KoreaFinlandHong Kong- China

SingaporeCanada

New ZealandJ apan

Australia

NetherlandsBelgium Norway,EstoniaSwitzerlandPoland,I celandUnited States LiechtensteinSwedenGermany,

I relandFrance, Chinese Taipei,DenmarkUnited KingdomHungary,Portugal

Macao-China I talyLatvia

Slovenia GreeceSpainSlovak Republic,Czech Republic CroatiaI srael

LuxembourgAustria Lithuania

TurkeyDubai (UAE) Russian Federation

Chile

Serbia

Shanghai- China

KoreaFinland

Hong Kong- China

Singapore CanadaNew Zealand J apan

Australia

NetherlandsBelgium NorwayEstoniaSwitzerlandPoland, I celandUnited States LiechtensteinSwedenGermany,

I relandFrance Chinese Taipei,DenmarkUnited KingdomHungary

PortugalI taly

LatviaSlovenia Greece Spain

Slovak RepublicCzech RepublicCroatiaI srael

LuxembourgAustria Lithuania

TurkeyDubai (UAE) Russian Federation

Chile

Serbia

Quality & equity of education for SENDDD children

Sources of comparative information

Sour

ce: O

ECD

PIS

A 20

03

o Programme for International Student Assessment – PISA (2003 and 2006)

o Data collection and comparisons through the OECD SENDDD framework

o Qualitative research in the framework of the No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education OECD project.

o Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)

The socio-economic background of SEN students in SEE and the Baltic, 2006

School grade of 15 year olds who took the PISA test

Sour

ce: O

ECD

PIS

A 20

06; N

ote:

dat

a ha

s lim

ited

stati

stica

l sig

nific

ance

due

to s

mal

l sam

ple

6%

26%

71%

43%

22% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current grade non SEN% Current grade SEN%

Current grade

11th grade

10th grade

9th grade

8th grade

7th grade

SEN students’ educational experience and expectations

   Not SEN

Functional Disability

Intellectual Disability

Limited Language

ProficiencyOther

  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

Not SEN SEN 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

12%22%

42%

35%

42% 41%

Parent education

Post Secondary, Tertiary Upper Secondary CompulsoryNone

Not SEN SEN 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

69%

53%

28%

47%

Highest parent occupational status

Blue collar workers White collar workers

The socio-economic background of SEN students in SEE and the Baltic, 2006

Family background

Sour

ce: O

ECD

PIS

A 20

06; N

ote:

dat

a ha

s lim

ited

stati

stica

l sig

nific

ance

due

to s

mal

l sam

ple

Comparison of student mathematics performance by SEN status

Below Level 1

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Not SEN SEN

Percentage of students

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

le

vel

Source: OECD PISA 2003

Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of r

esi

lien

t stu

de

nts

Resilient students are those from dis-advantaged backgrounds within their country (bottom quarter ESCS) perform-ing amongst the top quarter of disad-vantaged students in PISA (top quarter residuals)

Source: OECD PISA 2009

Performance in reading of non-SEN and SEN students in SEE and the Baltic, PISA 2006

Non

SEN

Func

tiona

l disa

bilit

y

Inte

llect

ual d

isabi

lity

Lim

ited

lang

uage

pro

f.

Non

SEN

Func

tiona

l disa

bilit

y

Inte

llect

ual d

isabi

lity

Lim

ited

lang

uage

pro

f.

Non

SEN

Func

tiona

l disa

bilit

y

Inte

llect

ual d

isabi

lity

Lim

ited

lang

uage

pro

f.

Non

SEN

Func

tiona

l disa

bilit

y

Inte

llect

ual d

isabi

lity

Lim

ited

lang

uage

pro

f.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

PISA OECD EU SEE and Baltic

Sour

ce: O

ECD

PIS

A 20

06; N

ote:

dat

a ha

s lim

ited

stati

stica

l sig

nific

ance

due

to s

mal

l sam

ple

Policy options

Improving equity and reducing school failure is a policy priority

There is a need for clear policy responses

Countries face challenges in adopting and implementing policies to improve equity in education

There are many different policies and strategies, yet no common knowledge base of what works

All countries are confronted with equity challenges, and they can be of different types

•Initial school leadership training; attractive working conditions to attract and retain competent leaders

•Restructure schools when needed

School leadership

•School plans to prioritise school climate and positive relationships, discipline alone not effective

•Support students

•Alternative organisation of distribution of learning time

School climate

•Provide specialised initial teacher education

•Ensure incentives and working conditions, time for planning, working together, mentoring

Quality teaching

•Support culture of high expectations

•Provide teacher support on how to tailor instruction, assessment and curricular practices to needs of disadvantaged schools and students

Classroom strategies

•Need to prioritize with select communication strategies

•Provide guidelines to parents on their role

•Foster closer links with communities and mentors

Parental and community

engagement

Support disadvantaged and inclusive schools

17

TALIS 2012 - Teacher training• SEN is named as area of greatest need for professional

development Cl

assr

oom

man

agem

ent *

Stud

ent d

isci

plin

e an

s be

havi

our p

rob-

lem

s *

Inst

ructi

onal

pra

ctice

s *

Stud

ent a

sses

smen

t pra

ctice

s *

Subj

ect fi

eld

*

Cont

ent a

nd p

erfo

rman

ce s

tand

ards

*

Stud

ent c

ouns

ellin

g *

Teac

hing

spe

cial

lear

ning

nee

ds s

tude

nts

*

Scho

ol m

anag

emen

t and

adm

inis

trati

on

*

Teac

hing

in a

mul

ticul

tura

l setti

ng

ICT

teac

hing

ski

lls *

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0.33

0.31

New teachers Experienced teachers

Difference between observed and predicted performance in advantaged schools, by students’ socio-economic

background

Finland

Qatar

Maca

o-China

Poland

Canada

Dubai (UAE)

Ireland

Panama

Estonia

Russian Fe

deration

Korea

Chinese Taipei

Tunisia

Thailand

Israel

Albania

Kyrgyzs

tan

Mexic

o

OECD avera

ge

Portugal

Peru

Montenegro

Serb

ia

Luxe

mbourg

France

Liech

tenstein

Turkey

Slova

k Republic

Hong Kong-China

Bulgaria

Austria

Germany

Slove

nia-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Disadvantaged student

Advantaged student

Scor

e po

int d

iffer

ence

Source: OECD PISA 2009

So, what can be done?

Identify the student population at risk,

and cater to its needs

Eliminate systemlevel obstacles to

equity

Supportdisadvantaged or challenged schools

Reading performance, by immigrant statusFi

nlan

dH

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

Sing

apor

eC

anad

aN

ew Z

eala

ndA

ustr

alia

Net

herla

nds

Bel

gium

Nor

way

Esto

nia

Switz

erla

ndU

nite

d St

ates

Liec

hten

stei

nSw

eden

Ger

man

yIre

land

Fran

ceD

enm

ark

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Hun

gary

OEC

D a

vera

gePo

rtug

alM

acao

-Chi

naIta

lySl

oven

iaG

reec

eSp

ain

Cze

ch R

epub

licC

roat

iaIs

rael

Luxe

mbo

urg

Aus

tria

Dub

ai (U

AE)

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Serb

iaM

exic

oTr

inid

ad a

nd T

obag

oB

razi

lM

onte

negr

oJo

rdan

Arg

entin

aK

azak

hsta

nQ

atar

Pana

ma

Aze

rbai

jan

Kyr

gyzs

tan300

350

400

450

500

550

All students Students without an immigrant background Second-generation students First-generation students

Mean score

Source: OECD PISA 2009

The challenge: to reduce the risk of low achievement due to personal circumstances (fairness)

Ko

rea

Fin

lan

dC

an

ad

aE

sto

nia

Jap

an

Au

stra

liaN

eth

erla

nd

sN

ew

Ze

ala

nd

No

rwa

yP

ola

nd

De

nm

ark

Sw

itze

rlan

dIc

ela

nd

Ire

lan

dS

we

de

nH

un

ga

ryU

nite

d S

tate

sP

ort

ug

al

Be

lgiu

mU

nite

d K

ing

do

mG

erm

an

yO

EC

D a

vera

ge

Sp

ain

Fra

nce

Italy

Slo

ven

iaG

ree

ceS

lova

k R

ep

ub

licC

zech

Re

pu

blic

Tu

rke

yL

uxe

mb

ou

rgIs

rae

lA

ust

riaC

hile

Me

xico

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5 Low socio-economic status(low vs. high)

Low parental education(low vs. high)

Immigrant status(immigrant vs. non-immigrant)

Gender(boys vs. girls)

Relative risk of scoring below level 2 depending on personal circumstances

Low

ris

k

Hig

h ris

k

Source: OECD PISA 2009