Sociale ongelijkheid en integratie in het onderwijs Emeritiforum

1
Sociale ongelijkheid en integratie in het
onderwijsEmeritiforum 23 oktober 2008

• Jan Van Damme, K.U.Leuven

2
INLEIDING

• Secundair onderwijs
• Basisonderwijs
• 3. Wat moeten we denken van het PISA-verhaal?
• 4. Conclusie

3

• Secundair onderwijs
• a. Eindpositie S.O. (en vertraging)
• functie van sekse, SES en allochtoon/autochtoon?
• - zonder aanvangskenmerken S.O.
• - met aanvangskenmerken S.O.
• Effect van soort medeleerlingen als vorm van
  kansenongelijkheid
• mogelijke reacties van scholen en leerkrachten

4
Eindpositie S.O.
5
Laatste succesvolle positie ih. S.O. zonder
controle voor aanvangskenmerken

• - Meisjes gt Jongens
• Hoge SES gt Lage SES
• Autochtonen gt Allochtonen

Interactie-effect tussen etniciteit en SES het
effect van SES is kleiner voor allochtone
leerlingen dan voor autochtone leerlingen
6
Laatste succesvolle positie ih. S.O. onder
controle voor aanvangskenmerken

• - Meisjes gt Jongens
• Hoge SES gt Lage SES
• - Geen effect van etniciteit

7

• Secundair onderwijs
• a. Eindpositie S.O. (en vertraging)
• functie van sekse, SES en allochtoon/autochtoon?
• - zonder aanvangskenmerken S.O.
• - met aanvangskenmerken S.O.
• Effect van soort medeleerlingen als vorm van
  kansenongelijkheid
• mogelijke reacties van scholen en leerkrachten

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12

• Secundair onderwijs
• Basisonderwijs
• 3. Wat moeten we denken van het PISA-verhaal?
• 4. Conclusie

13
2. Basisonderwijs
14
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingen
Wiskunde
15
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingen
Wiskunde
16
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingen
Wiskunde
17
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingen
Wiskunde
Initiële kloof 31 ? 92 van jaarlijkse
gemiddelde leerwinst Kloof einde L2 19 ? 65
18
Background ? achievement
Maths (SiBO)

• Initial gap for mathematics
• Large in terms of average annual learning
  gain 30 - 90
• ? Gap 1 trimester up to almost one full school
  year !
• Large differences between student categories
• Constant gap for Dutch speaking ED students
• no other ED-categories raise above
• ?Socially determined gap appears hard to overcome
• non-Dutch sp. ED make recovery move in G1
• ?Ethnic-cultural gap appears less hard to
  overcome

19
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingen
Technisch lezen
Kloof 2 ? 25 van jaarlijkse gemiddelde
leerwinst
20
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingen
Spelling
Kloof 10 ? 38 van jaarlijkse gemiddelde
leerwinst
21
Background ? achievement
Reading comprehension G4 (PIRLS)
Invloed voorschoolse thuistaal
22
Background ? achievement
Reading comprehension G4 (PIRLS)
P75
P50
P25
ED Turkish
ED Arab / B
ED Dutch
Average Dutch
Advant. Dutch
23
Rol aanv. NL taalvaardigheid
Pct van kloof (begin / einde L1) verklaard door
gebrek aan aanvankelijke Nederlandse
taalvaardigheid
Wiskunde Techn lezen Spelling
NL GOK 44 65 45
Turk.- GOK 41 77 85
Arab GOK 31 74 52
OAT GOK 38 91 63
AT niet GOK 29 --- 92
Onbekend 39 57 47
24
Background ? achievement

• Summary
• Low SES minority group students face a serious
  gap at start of grade 1
• for maths, reading fluency spelling
• Lack of initial Dutch language proficiency plays
  an important role
• Some recovery move in course of G1 for minority
  students, not for low SES students
• A persistent gap throughout primary education
• e.g. reading comprehension

25
Differences in effectiveness

• Value added
• Measure for school effectiveness
• Shows contribution of school to students
  learning
• having adjusted for effects of social background
• Relative measure
• Shows difference with average school
• Shows difference with what could be expected
  taking into account schools intake
  characteristics

26
Verschillen tussen scholen
Verschillen in toegevoegde waarde m.b.t.
leerwinst wiskunde L1 L2
Verschil P10 P90 half schooljaar
Schoolresidu leerwinst wiskunde L1L2 /- 1,39 SE
scholen
27
Verschillen tussen scholen

• 4 clusters van scholen op basis van instroom
• kansrijk ? ( 6 v.d. scholen)
• Gem. 52 niet-NL niet-GOK
• Vooral Franstaligen, hoge SES
• modaal ? (70 v.d. scholen)
• Gem. 70 NL niet-GOK
• kansarm (20 v.d. scholen)
• Gem. 36 NL niet-GOK
• Gem. 24 NL GOK
• zeer kansarm ? ( 4 v.d. scholen)
• Gem. 44 niet-NL GOK
• Gem. 15 niet-NL niet-GOK

28
Verschillen tussen scholen
Verschillen in toegevoegde waarde m.b.t.
leerwinst wiskunde L1 L2

• Geen verband tussen samenstelling schoolbevolking
  
• en effectiviteit

Schoolresidu leerwinst wiskunde L1L2 /- 1,39 SE
scholen
29

• 3. Wat moeten we denken van het PISA-verhaal?
• De OESO en anderen brengen het met verve.
• Wordt dat verhaal bevestigd door ander onderzoek?
  
• bijdrage UCL
• bijdrage van de Hofmans e.a.
• bijdrage van Dronkers e.a.
• c. Andere vragen die rijzen

30
Is it all innate ability?Variation in student
performance in mathematics
Variation of performance within schools

• In some countries, parents can rely on high and
  consistent standards across schools
• In Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden
  average student performance is high
• and largely unrelated to the individual schools
  in which students are enrolled.

Variation of performance between schools
11
1
14
12
5
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrows world First
results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.
31
Variation in student performance in mathematics

• In other countries, large performance
  differences among schools persist
• In Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
  Japan, the Netherlands and Turkey, most of the
  performance variation among schools lies between
  schools
• and in some of these countries, most notably
  those that are highly stratified, a large part of
  that variation is explained by socio-economic
  inequalities in learning opportunities
• Belgium 43, OECD 23, Canada 7, Finland 1

Variation of performance within schools
Variation of performance between schools
Variation explained by socio-economic level of
students and schools
28
4
26
15
22
6
16
3
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrows world First
results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.
32
School performance and schools socio-economic
background - Finland
Student performance and student SES
Student performance and student SES within schools
School performance and school SES
School proportional to size
Student performance
33
High mathematics performance
Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich
Mathematik
Hong Kong-China
Finland
Korea
540
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
520
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
Austria
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Ireland
Germany
500
Slovak Republic
Norway
Luxembourg
Poland
Hungary
Spain
United States
Latvia
480
Russian Federation
Portugal
Italy
Early selection and institutional
differentiation High degree of
stratification Low degree of stratification
460
Low mathematics performance
Greece
440
6
16
26
34
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OFEDUCATION
SYSTEMSIN EUROPEA cross-country comparisonon
quality and equityEditors Hofman R.
H.Hofman W.H.A.Gray J.Daly P. Co-authors

• Dimokritos Kavadias
• Maria Isabel Lopes da Silva
• Javier Murillo
• Franck Poupeau
• Graham Thorpe
• Peter Weng

• Gertrudes Amaro
• Peter Daly
• Birgitta Fredander
• John Gray
• Henk Guldemond
• Adriaan Hofman
• Roelande Hofman

35
QUALITY AND EQUITY OF EUROPEAN EDUCATION
SYSTEMS

• Quality
• Are their major differences in achievement
  between students in the 13 European education
  systems?
• Equity
• Do the 13 European countries differ in the
  achievement gap between their native and their
  minority students?
• Institutional contexts
• Are there trends in the data showing
  relationships between quality and equity of these
  education systems and certain institutional
  characteristics of these countries
• Explanations
• And, if such trends appear, what kind of
  explanations can we found upon them?

36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
Indicators of concepts of institutional context Size and type of funding 4 indicators of relative sizes of public and private sector 3 types of financial bases on which they are founded Variation in governance and power 4 types of governance structures 3 models of power of school councils (that include parents) Degree of school choice - 4 types of freedom of school choice 3 models regarding school fees to be paid
40
Configuration theory Multi Dimensional Scaling
2 dimensions resulting from MDS 4 configurations
of countries
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Some conclusions

• countries that include high percentages of
  students within grant-aided education have been
  performing better in terms of quality than
  countries that are dominated by public schools
  (or less than 10)
• Furthermore, the native students in these
  countries tended to be near the top of the
  quality rankings
• Countries with relatively high percentages of
  students in grant-aided schools tended to perform
  better than others when equity dimensions are
  taken into account. The gap in performance
  between low/ses and native high/middle-ses
  students is frequently smaller
• The Netherlands and Belgium scored well overall
  and in terms of performance of their low/ses
  minorities.
• However, for their ethnic minority students, the
  picture was by no means as favourable.
• A reverse pattern can be seen for countries as
  Portugal and Spain

44
Immigrants and school segregation
by Dronkers Levels (PISA 2003)
45
Study 1 by Levels and Dronkers (2005)

• Big differences in achievement between students
  from another ethnic
• background and native students
• Why?
• Country of origin
• Country of residence
• SES

46

• Data
• PISA 2003 (students math achievement at age 15)
• Results
• 1) Country of origin ? achievement of students
• 2) Country of residence ? achievement of
  students
• 3) Effects of country of origin on achievement
  are stronger than the effects of country of
  residence
• 4) 1st and 2nd generation students from
  countries in
• West-Asia, North-Africa, Latin-America
  scored lower in math than students from countries
  in Europe and the Pacific Rim even after
  controlling for SES
• ? effect of country of origin on achievement
  cannot be reduced to the effect of SES on
  achievement
• ?explanation? Distance between culture of origin
  and current culture

47
Study 2 by Dronkers and Levels (2005)

• Main research question
• Are the lower achievement of students from
  another ethnic background related to the SES and
  the ethnic school composition?
• Hypotheses
• The effect of the SES and the ethnic composition
  of schools on achievement is larger for the
  students from another ethnic background than for
  native students
• The variation between countries of the effect of
  SES and the ethnic composition of schools on
  achievement is related to differences in school
  resources
• The effect of the SES and the ethnic composition
  of schools on achievement is larger for students
  from West-Asia, North-Africa and Latin America
  than for students from other regions

48

• Main results
• 1) The SES composition of schools has a larger
  impact on achievement than the ethnic composition
  of schools
• 2) The SES and the ethnic composition of schools
  have independent effects on achievement
• 3) The effects of the ethnic school composition
  are not larger for students from West-Asia,
  North-Africa, Latin-America than for students
  from Europe and the Pacific Rim
• ? the differences in achievement between
  students from different ethnic background could
  not be explained by the school SES en ethnic
  segregation

49

• 4) The variation between countries of the effect
  of SES and the ethnic composition of schools on
  achievement was not related to differences in
  school resources
• 5) The high achieving students in math (native
  students and students from Europe, North-America,
  Australia and Southeast Asia) are more negatively
  influenced by the ethnic school segregation than
  the lower achieving students in math
• ? the ethnic school segregation is not negative
  for all students
• 6) The SES segregation of schools is negative
  for all students

50

• 3. Wat moeten we denken van het PISA-verhaal?
• De OESO en anderen brengen het met verve.
• Wordt dat verhaal bevestigd door ander onderzoek?
  
• c. Andere vragen die rijzen
• Verwachte evoluties gezien het gevoerde beleid
• Is een benadering op basis van een
  leeftijdscohorte adequaat om het onderwijs te
  evalueren?
• Zijn de prestatieverschillen tussen scholen meer
  dan instroomverschillen?
• Wat meet PISA?

51
4. Conclusie

• Aan welk soort onderzoek is er behoefte?