benchmarking the way ahead - disability-inclusive mdg‘s and aid effectiveness
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
Benchmarking the way aheadDisability-inclusive MDG‘s and Aid Effectiveness
Bangkok, 14-16 March 2012Mihaylo Milovanovitch, Directorate for Education OECD
Structure
o Where do we stand
o Potential tools for addressing challenges
o Benchmarking the way ahead
Where do we stand?
Challenge #1: Funding
Total Bilateral ODA vs. Expenditures on Education
4
Com
mit
men
ts,
US
D B
illi
on
s
Source: Creditor Reporting System (CRS), OECD
Funding: top ten education donors in 2008 and their focus
Sou
rce:
OE
CD
Funding: which kinds of education have received the support of donors?
62005 2006 2007 2008 20090
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
ODA to education by subsector 2005-2009
Post-Secondary Education
Secondary Education
Basic Education
Education, Level Unspeci-fied
Source: OECD
Funding: which group of countries?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
IDA
UK
Canada
United States
France
EC
Japan
Germany
Proportion of Education ODA to LICs (%)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f E
du
ca
tio
n O
DA
to
MIC
s (
%)
Italy
Source: OECD
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
Challenge 2: Equity and fairness of education- SEN students’ socio-economic 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
Equity: SEN students’ educational experience
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
10
Challenge #3: teachers and their preparation
• SEN is named as area of greatest need for professional development
Clas
sroo
m m
anag
emen
t *
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
Sou
rce:
OE
CD
TA
LIS
201
2
Challenge 4: lack of comparative data and evidence
Milovanovitch
Shared policyenvironment
National policyenvironment #1
National policyEnvironment #2
National policyEnvironment #4
National policyEnvironment #3
?
Potential “challenge fitting” tools
A map of PISA countries and economies
13
ODA recipients in PISA
14
Perceived causes of difficulty in accessing the regular curriculum, which determine the need for additional resources:
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”.
Cross-national category Description
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).
B/Difficulties
Students with behavioural or emotional disorders, or specific difficulties in learning.
C/Disadvantages
Students with disadvantages arising primarily from socio-economic, cultural, and/or linguistic factors.
Benchmarking the way ahead
Adjustment of large scale survey instruments (PISA)
• Low levels of enrolment at age 15 in ODA countries
• Large share of students perform at lowest levels of proficiency
Relevance
• Reliability of measurement is much lower at the bottom of the performance distribution
Reliability
• Background questionnaires (student, school principal, parents) would have to be adjusted to reflect different policy realities in ODA countries
Policy priorities
• Value added gained from participation: very costly and capacity intensive
Value added
New education indicators
• Enrolment rates in primary education• Completion rates in primary education • Literacy rates
The Millennium Development Goals uses three education indicators:
Use of new indicators to assess country’s progress towards development, which can be (largely) implemented in surveys already conducted by national statistical offices
New education indicators
• 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 inputs
• 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)
Educational outcomes
• 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
Relevance and lost potential of education
• Promoting the dialogue and collaboration of school systems with similar characteristics
Structure of national school systems
It is time to “mainstream” the issue of inclusiveness
Agree on benchmarking of compliance and implementation of the Convention
Plan steps towards a base of comparative evidence
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
The Convention;
Post- 2015 multilateral commitments
Policy track
The Convention;
Post- 2015 multilateral commitments
Technical track
The way ahead:Agree on what, when and how and promote it
21
Positioning in multilateral commitments
Mainstreaming of SENDDD agendas in fora of other sectors
Lobbying for higher priority ofSENDDD-relevant issues in
ODA spending
Define physicalaccessibility standards
Agree on a universal internationalclassification framework of disabilities & disadvantages
Set benchmarks of inclusivenessfor each “category” and
“sub-category” of the framework
Set a benchmark for resources to be invested per SENDDD student
and “category”.
Benchmark achievementper category