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?