ACHIEVING EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN

EDUCATION : AN OECD PERSPECTIVE

Beatriz PontOECD Directorate for Education and Skills

Education InternationalUnite for Quality Education ConferenceMontreal, Canada, 26-27 May, 2014

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 is increasing evidence that equity and quality can go together and there are many different policies and strategies to improve equity

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

3

High performing systems combine equity with quality

Socially equitable distribution of learning

opportunities

Strong socio-economic

impact on student performance

Singa

pore

Hong Kong-C

hinaJapan

Belgium

Germany

Canada

New Zealand

Austria

Czech

Republic

United Kingd

om

Iceland

Ireland

Denmark

Norway

Hungary

Sweden

Russian Fe

deration

Chile

Mexic

o0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45%

Equity does not necessarily hamper qualityTab I.2.1a

UK

Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skills.

5

Likelihood of positive social and economic outcomes among highly literate adults

Benefits of high literacy Likelihood of positive outcomes among highly literate adults,

PIAAC 2012

Key levers for change and improvementThe Education Policy Outlook : A window into countries’

education systems

Equity and quality

Preparing students for the future

School improvement

Evaluation and assessment

Key levers for change and improvementThe Education Policy Outlook: A window into countries’

education systems

Equity and quality

Preparing students for the future

School improvement

Evaluation and assessment

Is the system equitable for its

students?

Reducing school failure pays off

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 expendituresHigher welfare, increased criminality

.. and the crisis has brought equity to the forefront

K

orea

Ja

pan

Sw

itzer

land

2.

5

Bel

gium

3.9

N

ethe

rland

s-3

.9

Ger

man

y

-7.7

P

olan

d3.

7

Can

ada

5.5

F

inla

nd7.

6

New

Zea

land

5.

3

Aus

tral

ia

Aus

tria

0.

7

OEC

D a

vera

ge 2

003

5.7

F

ranc

e

4.4

C

zech

Rep

ublic

2.6

L

uxem

bour

g

6.5

Ic

elan

d7.

5

Slo

vak

Repu

blic

Irel

and

-5

.2

Por

tuga

l

Den

mar

k-7

.3

Ital

y

Nor

way

5.1

H

unga

ry

U

nite

d St

ates

9.

8

Sw

eden

S

pain

-1

0.2

Tur

key

Gre

ece

-1

1.2

Mex

ico

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Proportion of 15 year olds that do not reach a minimum level (below level 2), PISA 2003 and 2012

The challenge: that all students reach a minimum

The challenge: to reduce dropout rates% of individuals who have not completed upper secondary education by age group

Kore

aSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Czec

h Re

publ

icPo

land

Slov

enia

Cana

daSw

eden

Finl

and

Switz

erla

ndAu

stria

Unite

d St

ates

Isra

elEs

toni

aG

erm

any

Hung

ary

Irela

ndDe

nmar

kCh

ileFr

ance

Luxe

mbo

urg

Norw

ayBe

lgiu

mAu

stra

liaNe

ther

land

sUn

ited

King

dom

OEC

D av

erag

eNe

w Ze

alan

dG

reec

eIta

lyIc

elan

dSp

ain

Portu

gal

Mex

icoTu

rkey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8025-34 25-64

Perc

enta

ge o

f pop

ulat

ion

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

Relative risk of scoring below in bottom quarter depending on personal circumstances, PISA 2012

Low

ris

k

H

igh

risk

Hun

gary

New

Zea

land

Fran

ce

Isra

el

Belg

ium

Ger

man

y

Luxe

mbo

urg

Chile

Den

mar

k

Aus

tria

Port

ugal

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Spai

n

Pola

nd

OEC

D a

vera

ge

Aus

tral

ia

Irel

and

Swit

zerl

and

Gre

ece

Slov

enia

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Net

herl

ands

Japa

n

Swed

en

Ital

y

Finl

and

Uni

ted

Kin.

..

Mex

ico

Cana

da

Nor

way

Turk

ey

Kore

a

Icel

and

Esto

nia

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Students in the bottom quarter of the ESCS index Immigrant students

Rela

tive

risk

of sc

orin

g in

bott

om q

uart

er in

PIS

A m

athe

mati

cs 2

012

The mathematics gap between immigrant and native students

% of students above baseline level (level 3 or above by immigrant status, PISA 2012H

ong

Kong

-Chi

naSi

ngap

ore

Liec

hten

stei

nSw

itze

rlan

dN

ethe

rlan

dsM

acao

-Chi

naEs

toni

aFi

nlan

dG

erm

any

Belg

ium

Cana

daA

ustr

iaLu

xem

bour

gD

enm

ark

Fran

ceIr

elan

dSl

oven

iaA

ustr

alia

Czec

h Re

publ

icN

ew Z

eala

ndO

ECD

ave

rage

Icel

and

Uni

ted

King

dom

Nor

way

Spai

nPo

rtug

alLa

tvia

Ital

ySw

eden

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

nU

nite

d St

ates

Hun

gary

Isra

elCr

oatia

Gre

ece

Serb

iaKa

zakh

stan

Mal

aysi

aM

onte

negr

oM

exic

oU

nite

d A

rab

Emir

ates

Cost

a Ri

caBr

azil

Arg

entin

aJo

rdan

Qat

ar

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

First-generation students

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s ab

ove

the

base

line

leve

l (L

evel

3 o

r ab

ove)

Policies to achieve more equitable education systems and reduce dropout

Invest early and through upper

secondary

Eliminate system level

obstacles to equity

1) Avoid system level policies that hinder equity

More equitable

system level

policies

ECECAustralia/Canada/

Chile/Mexico/Nordic/

France/Spain

Comprehensive education

and postpone trackingNordic/Austria/Germany

Equivalent upper

secondary pathways

Nordic/Alberta

Manage school choice to avoid

inequities Neths/Chile

Make funding responsive to

needs Chile/Netherlands/Australia/

Ontario

Policy options to postpone tracking to upper secondary

Comprehensive school to upper secondary

Suppress low-level tracks

Limit selection to specific subjects or flexible settings

Upper secondary pathwaysA

ustr

ia

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Belg

ium

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Finl

and

Net

herla

nds

Switz

erla

nd

Slov

enia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Ital

y

Swed

en

Nor

way

Ger

man

y

Chin

a

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

n

Aus

tral

ia

Den

mar

k

Pola

nd

OEC

D a

vera

ge

Fran

ce

Spai

n

Turk

ey

New

Zea

land

Port

ugal

Isra

el

Irel

and

Chile

Icel

and

Esto

nia

Gre

ece

Uni

ted

King

dom

Hun

gary

Kore

a

Japa

n

Braz

il

Mex

ico

Cana

da

Indi

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100General Vocational

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s

Braz il

Indi

a

Enrolment in upper secondary by programme

Upper secondary pathways: promote more work-oriented skills

Academic and vocational tracks

should be

equivalent to ensure

transferability and avoid dead ends

VET should provide high

level

generic skills in addition to

professional

Guidance and counselling

services need to engage more fully with the

world of work

+ strategies for those at risk of dropping out

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

Make funding more responsive to needs

Take into consideration that the instructional

costs of disadvantaged students may be higher

Targeting resources to areas with a high

concentration of low performing

disadvantaged students

Policies to achieve more equitable education systems and reduce dropout

Invest early and through upper

secondary

Eliminate system level

obstacles to equity

Insufficient systemic support

Schools’ inadequate response to

student needs

Insufficient support for

staff

Poor manageme

nt

Impact of student’s

socio-economic

background

Wider range of abilities

Challenging school climate

Poor school environmen

ts

Disadvantaged schools are confronted to multiple challenges

Demanding learni

ng environment

Inadequate support

systems

22

Students may have different opportunities depending on schools they attend

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Austria

Japan

Slovak Republic

Ireland

Portugal

Czech

RepublicChile

Mexico

Australia

Turkey

Poland

Canada

Sweden

Finland0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Students in socio-economically disadvantaged schoolsStudents in socio-economically average schoolsStudents in socio-economically advantaged schools

Relative risk of scoring in the bottom quarter of the performance distribution, PISA 2012

2) Support low performing disadvantaged schools

Supporting

disadvantaged

schools

General strategies

IRL/FIN/AUST/N. ZEAL/GER

Supportive school

climates/dataH.

PERF./DK/FR

Quality professionalsAUSTR/NOR

Effective classroom strategiesParental and

community engagement

MX/NETH

Examples of systemic support to disadvantaged groups/schools

•OFIP targeted support to schools•2002/03- 2010/11: from 19% to 6% reduction .

Ontario

•Smarter schools national partnership for disadvantaged schools •Aboriginal and torres islanders action plan.

Australia

•Ireland Delivering Equality of Opportunity (DEIS, 2005)•System for identifying levels of disadvantage and providing tailored support •n Schools (DEIS, 2005):

Ireland

•Maori and pasifika islanders strategy•Cultural competencies for teachers

New Zealand

•Action programme to promote equal opportunity in education (2013) lower gender differences, impact of SES and disadvantaged.•One year preparatory education for immigrants (2014).

Finland

•Québec “Act differently”:•Database of effective practices for intervention to develop schools’ expertise (189 schools in 2007/08). •School boards, through resources and coordination, support the school leadership team.

Quebec

Quality teaching in disadvantaged schools: a key challengeRelationship between school average socio-economic background and teachers

AustraliaAustria

BelgiumCanada

Czech RepublicDenmark

EstoniaFinlandFrance

GermanyGreece

HungaryIcelandIreland

IsraelItaly

JapanKorea

MexicoNetherlands

New ZealandNorwayPoland

PortugalSpain

SwedenSwitzerland

United KingdomUnited States

OECD average

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Disadvantaged schools tend to have higher proportions of full-time teachers…

…But a fewer proportion of them have an advanced university degree

Students attending

more advantaged

schools tend to enjoy a higher

proportion of high

quality, full-time

teachers

Disadvantaged schools face difficulties in attracting and retaining staff

•Teachers in schools with higher proportions of low-SES or minority students have higher propensity to leave.

United States

•Rural schools with higher proportions of aboriginal students are seen as less desirable, making it harder to recruit and retain teachers.

Australia

•School leaders report that it is difficult to recruit and retain teachers to work in schools with children born abroad.

Japan

•Teachers in schools with higher proportions of low socio-economic status students have higher propensity to leave.

New Zealand

•Schools with higher levels of minority students harder to staff and teachers are significantly more likely to leave.

Norway

•Better qualified teachers are less likely to teach in schools containing minority and disadvantaged children.

France

More effective classroom strategies for disadvantaged students

Effective classroom strategies

Diversified and flexible pedagogic

strategies

Summative and formative

assessment

Curriculum with high

expectations

Policies to achieve more equitable education systems and reduce dropout

Invest early and through upper

secondary

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.

Main sources for further information at OECD

Education Policy Outlookwww.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htm

www.oecd.org/edu/equity

Context

Reforms

Challenges

Education Policy Outlook: Country ProfilesA comparative OECD insight into a country’s context, challenges and policy responses

For further information at OECD Education: Beatriz Pont, beatriz.pont@oecd.org

www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htm www.oecd.org/pisa