Sociale ongelijkheid en integratie in het onderwijsEmeritiforum 23 oktober 2008Jan Van Damme, K.U.Leuven
INLEIDINGSecundair onderwijs
Basisonderwijs
3.Wat moeten we denken van het PISA-verhaal?
4.Conclusie
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
Eindpositie S.O.
Id#
Intel
SO_Positie
Lj_Weight-1lj
OndWScore-1lj
115
119.5092
6_ASO_LA-WI 8
3
358.5277
23
118.6
6_ASO_LA-WE 5
3
355.8
4
118.2565
6_ASO_Rest
3
354.7696
132
117.4714
6_ASO_WE-WI 8
3
352.4143
17
117.3133
6_ASO_GR-W
3
351.9398
11
114.6139
7_ASO
3
343.8416
82
114.5319
6_ASO_GR-LA
3
343.5957
11
114.2801
6_KSO_VORMING
3
342.8404
20
114.2128
6_ASO_LA-WE 6
3
342.6385
156
114.1939
6_ASO_LA-WI 6
3
342.5818
188
113.0733
6_ASO_WE-WI 6
3
339.2198
118
111.7645
6_ASO_LA-MT 3
3
335.2935
25
111.6373
6_ASO_LA-MT 4
3
334.9118
59
111.366
6_ASO_LA-WE 4
3
334.098
31
111.2713
6_ASO_SP-WE
3
333.8141
135
110.6461
6_ASO_MT-WI
3
331.9382
89
110.5274
6_TSO_INDUSTRIELE WETENSCHAPPEN
3
331.5823
22
110.5135
6_ASO_EC-MT
3
331.5406
304
109.9926
6_ASO_EC-WI
3
329.9777
14
109.7025
6_KSO_ARCHITECTURALE VORMING
3
329.1075
110
109.3194
6_ASO_MT-WE
3
327.9581
7
108.599
7_TSO_Rest
3
325.7971
11
108.5739
6_TSO_INDUSTRIELE INFORMATICA
3
325.7216
14
108.4575
6_TSO_Rest
3
325.3726
Laatste succesvolle positie ih. S.O. zonder controle voor aanvangskenmerken- Meisjes > JongensHoge SES > Lage SESAutochtonen > AllochtonenInteractie-effect tussen etniciteit en SES: het effect van SES is kleiner voor allochtone leerlingen dan voor autochtone leerlingen
Chart1
261.7256.3268.7263.3
274.7262.5281.8269.5
287.8268.7294.8275.8
300.9274.9307.9282
Autochtone Jongens
Allochtone Jongens
Autochtone Meisjes
Allochtone Meisjes
Socioeconomische Status
Niveau vd Eindpositie S.O.
Sheet1
Socio-economic statusESAutochtone JongensAllochtone JongensAutochtone MeisjesAllochtone Meisjes
-2261.7268.7
-1274.7281.8
0287.8294.8
1300.9307.9
256.3263.3
262.5269.5
268.7275.8
274.9282
Sheet1
Autochtone Jongens
Allochtone Jongens
Autochtone Meisjes
Allochtone Meisjes
Socio-economic status
Educational attainment
Sheet2
Sheet3
Laatste succesvolle positie ih. S.O. onder controle voor aanvangskenmerken- Meisjes > JongensHoge SES > Lage SES- Geen effect van etniciteit
Chart2
282.4287.9
287.5293
292.6298.1
297.7303.2
Jongens
Meisjes
Socioeconomische Status
Niveau vd Eindpositie S.O.
Sheet1
Socioeconomische StatusJongensEthnic minority boysMeisjesEthnic minority girls
-2282.4287.9
-1287.5293
0292.6298.1
1297.7303.2
282.4287.9
287.5293
292.6298.1
297.7303.2
Sheet1
Jongens
Meisjes
Socio-economic status
Niveau vd Eindpositie S.O.
Sheet2
Sheet3
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
Secundair onderwijs
Basisonderwijs
3.Wat moeten we denken van het PISA-verhaal?
4.Conclusie
2. Basisonderwijs
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingenWiskunde
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingenWiskunde
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingenWiskunde
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingenWiskundeInitile kloof: 31% 92% van jaarlijkse gemiddelde leerwinst;Kloof einde L2: 19% 65%
Background achievementInitial gap for mathematicsLarge in terms of % average annual learning gain: 30% - 90% Gap = 1 trimester up to almost one full school year !Large differences between student categoriesConstant gap for Dutch speaking ED students+ no other ED-categories raise aboveSocially determined gap appears hard to overcomenon-Dutch sp. ED make recovery move in G1 Ethnic-cultural gap appears less hard to overcome
Maths (SiBO)
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingenTechnisch lezenKloof: 2% 25% van jaarlijkse gemiddelde leerwinst
Ongelijkheid tussen leerlingenSpellingKloof: 10% 38% van jaarlijkse gemiddelde leerwinst
Background achievementReading comprehension G4 (PIRLS)Invloed voorschoolse thuistaal
Background achievementReading comprehension G4 (PIRLS)P75P50P25ED TurkishED Arab / BED DutchAverage DutchAdvant. Dutch
Rol aanv. NL taalvaardigheidPct van kloof (begin / einde L1) verklaard door gebrek aanaanvankelijke Nederlandse taalvaardigheid
Background achievementSummaryLow SES & minority group students face a serious gap at start of grade 1for maths, reading fluency & spellingLack of initial Dutch language proficiency plays an important roleSome recovery move in course of G1 for minority students, not for low SES studentsA persistent gap throughout primary educatione.g. reading comprehension
Differences in effectivenessValue addedMeasure for school effectivenessShows contribution of school to students learninghaving adjusted for effects of social backgroundRelative measure: Shows difference with average schoolShows difference with what could be expected taking into account schools intake characteristics
Verschillen tussen scholenVerschillen in toegevoegde waarde m.b.t. leerwinst wiskunde L1 + L2Verschil P10 P90 half schooljaarscholenSchoolresidu leerwinst wiskunde L1+L2+/- 1,39 SE
Verschillen tussen scholen4 clusters van scholen op basis van instroomkansrijk( 6 % v.d. scholen)Gem. 52% niet-NL niet-GOKVooral Franstaligen, hoge SESmodaal (70 % v.d. scholen)Gem. 70 % NL niet-GOKkansarm (20 % v.d. scholen)Gem. 36% NL niet-GOKGem. 24% NL GOKzeer kansarm ( 4 % v.d. scholen)Gem. 44% niet-NL GOKGem. 15% niet-NL niet-GOK
Verschillen tussen scholenGeen verband tussen samenstelling schoolbevolking en effectiviteitVerschillen in toegevoegde waarde m.b.t. leerwinst wiskunde L1 + L2Schoolresidu leerwinst wiskunde L1+L2+/- 1,39 SEscholen
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 UCLbijdrage van de Hofmans e.a.bijdrage van Dronkers e.a.
c.Andere vragen die rijzen
Is it all innate ability?Variation in student performance in mathematicsVariation of performance between schoolsOECD (2004), Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.In some countries, parents can rely on high and consistent standards across schoolsIn Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden average student performance is highand largely unrelated to the individual schools in which students are enrolled.11114125Variation of performance within schools
Variation in student performance in mathematicsVariation of performance between schoolsVariation of performance within schoolsVariation explained by socio-economic level of students and schoolsOECD (2004), Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.In other countries, large performance differences among schools persistIn Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Turkey, most of the performance variation among schools lies between schoolsand 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 opportunitiesBelgium: 43%, OECD: 23%, Canada: 7%, Finland: 1%2822462616153
School performance and schools socio-economic background - FinlandStudent performance and student SESStudent performance and student SES within schoolsSchool performance and school SESSchool proportional to sizeStudent performance
Durchschnittliche Schlerleistungen im Bereich MathematikStrong socio-economic impact on student performanceSocially equitable distribution of learning opportunitiesHigh mathematics performanceLow mathematics performanceEarly selection and institutional differentiationHigh degree of stratificationLow degree of stratificationGreeceRussian FederationLiechtensteinKoreaHong Kong-ChinaFinlandNetherlandsCanadaSwitzerlandNew ZealandBelgiumJapanAustraliaIcelandCzech RepublicSwedenFranceDenmarkIrelandGermanyAustriaSlovak RepublicLuxembourgPolandHungaryNorwaySpainUnited StatesLatviaPortugalItaly44046048050052054061626
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OFEDUCATION SYSTEMSIN EUROPEA cross-country comparisonon quality and equity
Editors Hofman R. H.Hofman W.H.A.Gray J.Daly P.
Co-authors:
Gertrudes AmaroPeter DalyBirgitta FredanderJohn GrayHenk GuldemondAdriaan HofmanRoelande HofmanDimokritos KavadiasMaria Isabel Lopes da SilvaJavier Murillo Franck Poupeau Graham ThorpePeter Weng
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?
Indicators of concepts of institutional context:Size and type of funding:4 indicators of relative sizes of public and private sector3 types of financial bases on which they are foundedVariation 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
Configuration theory: Multi Dimensional Scaling
2 dimensions resulting from MDS 4 configurations of countries
Types of countries
Size of funding
Type of funding
Gover
nance
Parent power
School choice
School
Fees
-- type A Netherlands
Ireland
Belgium (FL)
Belgium (FR)
High
>30% grant-aided private
Identical to public education
Largely privately-run
Consultative to no power
free
choice
No
Fees
-- type B
Spain
Denmark
France
Portugal
Moderate
10-30% grant-aided private
Similar to public education
Mixed
Decision - making power
Mixed
School
fees
-- type C
Sweden
Germany
Austria
Low
< 10% grant-aided private
Similar to public education
Largely publicly-run
Consultative to no power
Central pupil allocation or free choice
Mixed
-- type D
England
Scotland
None
Public sector
Mostly
Different
from public
Largely publicly-run
Consultative
Power
Central pupil allocation or free choice
Low
Fees
Test
of
significance
Posterior
mean
native students
Gap
native and
low/ses students
Gap
native and
ethnic minority students
CONFIGURATION A
Neth Bel(fl) Bel(fr) Ireland
+ 30.55 *
- 10.54 *
- 16.58
CONFIGURATION B
Spain Fra Denmk Por
- 25.41
- 18.88
- 15.23
CONFIGURATION C
Swe Germany Austria
+ 8.05
- 11.35
- 14.58
CONFIGURATION D
England Scotland
- 22.35
- 18.01
- 12.91
F = 5.058
P = .025
1 versus 2,4
F = 4.579
P = .038
1 versus 2,4
F = 1.273
P = .341
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
Immigrants and school segregation by Dronkers & Levels (PISA 2003)
Study 1 by Levels and Dronkers (2005)Big differences in achievement between students from another ethnicbackground and native students
Why?Country of originCountry of residenceSES
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 achievementexplanation? Distance between culture of origin and current culture
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 studentsThe variation between countries of the effect of SES and the ethnic composition of schools on achievement is related to differences in school resourcesThe 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
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
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
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 beleidIs een benadering op basis van een leeftijdscohorte adequaat om het onderwijs te evalueren?Zijn de prestatieverschillen tussen scholen meer dan instroomverschillen?Wat meet PISA?
4. Conclusie
Aan welk soort onderzoek is er behoefte?