key findings of the oecd policy review of migrant education and implications for language education...
TRANSCRIPT
Key Findings of the OECD Policy Review of Migrant Education
and
Implications for Language Education Policy for Immigrant Children
Miho TagumaProject Manager of Policy Review of Migrant Education
Intergovernmental Policy Forum2-4 November 2010 1
Stock of foreign-born, as percentage in population
Brief Background
2
Project’s overarching question
What policies will promote successful education outcomes of first and second generation immigrant students?
• Focus:
– Education outcomes (Student Performance, Participation, Access) vs labour market outcomes
– Education policies vs immigration, housing, social and labour market policies
• Scope: Pre-school, primary and secondary education
• Review countries (6 countries): Austria, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden
• Background reports (above + 6 countries): Finland, Hungary, Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom
• Working methods: Mix of quantitative and qualitative
– Desk-based research: i) statistical analysis for 6 countries +: national statistics, PISA, PARLS and ii) literature reviews, and country background reports to establish facts and explore factors that are linked to education outcomes, and consider policy implications
– Fact-finding and policy review visits to consolidate the facts and suggest effective policy options for the countries concerned 3
• PISA shows: At age 15, marked performance differences in reading are observed.
400
450
500
550
600
Score Native students -
First generation immigrant students OECD average performance in reading
38 pts
Roughly equivalent to one year of
schooling
(science -proxy)
4
Second generation immigrant students
1 How do immigrant students perform?
Student-level factors
Accounting for students' socio - economic backgroundAccounting for students' socio - economic background and language spoken at home
Performance difference in reading
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20Score point difference
• “SES” and “speaking a different language at home” largely explain the performance gap between the two groups in many countries. But they are not the only reasons.
2 What can explain the gap/ non-gap?
38 pts
Roughly equivalent to one year of
schooling
(science -proxy)
• Other factors: availability of educational resources at home, reading at home at a young age, and participating in ECEC, etc.
5
School-level factors
A few examples….. More hours per week for language learning in regular class
Australia ++Austria - - -Belgium ++
Flemish Com. ++++Canada +Denmark ~~Germany ~~Greece ++Ireland ~~Italy +++Luxembourg +++++
Netherlands ~~
New Zealand ++++Norway +++Portugal ++++Spain +++Sweden ~~
Switzerland ++
United Kingdom ~~ ~~ Relationship with performance is not statistically significant- / + Less than 20 score point change in reading performance- - / ++ Between 21 and 40 score point change in reading performance- - - / +++ Between 41 and 60 score point change in reading performance- - - - / ++++ Between 61 and 80 score point change in reading performance- - - - - / +++++ More than 80 score point change in reading performanceSource: OECD PISA 2006 database
6
Policy target and policy alignment Government Steering Tools
Ministry of Education
Other ministries
Regional governments
Students (Primary Target)
Parents
Teachers/ school masters
Teacher education univ & colleges
Communities