Migration and Integration

Transcription

1 Migration and Integration Integration in Education Education for Integration Istanbul - 13 October 2017 Francesca Borgonovi Senior Analyst - Migration and Gender Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD

2 The project The Strength through Diversity project combines in-depth data analysis and indicator development with thematic workshops and country reports of policies and practices

3 Key messages Turkey is doing comparatively poorly in integrating immigrant children in education and ensuring that education promotes their long term integration But Turkey has been working hard in the past decade to increase access to schooling for Turkish students and did so while improving the quality and equity of education A comparative perspective: even when access is address, promoting high quality learning among immigrant students remains a struggle in most countries

4 Migrant Integration Policy Index - MIPEX MIPEX measures 167 policy indicators to evaluate and compare policies aimed at promoting migrant integration countries 8 macro-areas covered: labour market mobility, education, political participation, family reunion, access to nationality, health, permanent residence and anti-discrimination.

5 MIPEX Turkey has a relatively weak position in Education

6 MIPEX 2015 SCORE - TURKEY

7 MIPEX 2015 SCORE - SWEDEN

8 MIPEX Education - I Access: Access to pre-primary education and compulsory education Compulsory education as a legal right Assessment of prior learning; Access to non-compulsory education Access to vocational training Access to higher education Targeting needs: Educational guidance at all levels Provision of support to learn language of instruction Migrant pupil monitoring Measures to address educational situation of migrant groups Teacher training to reflect migrants learning needs

9 MIPEX Education - II New opportunities: Support for teaching immigrant languages Support for teaching immigrant cultures Measures to counter segregation of migrant pupils and promote integration Measures to support migrant parents and communities Measures to bring migrants into the teacher workforce Intercultural education for all: School curriculum to reflect diversity State supported information initiatives Adapting curriculum to reflect diversity Adapting daily school life to reflect diversity Teacher training to reflect diversity

10 MIPEX Education scores Turkey, by dimension

11 B-S-J-G (China) Korea Poland Thailand Peru Japan Brazil Colombia Romania Turkey Algeria Mexico Chile Dominican Republic Bulgaria Uruguay Albania Tunisia Slovak Republic Georgia Chinese Taipei Hungary Lithuania FYROM Czech Republic Moldova Finland Trinidad and Tobago Lebanon Slovenia Russia Costa Rica Italy Iceland Spain Malta Netherlands Latvia Greece Estonia Denmark OECD average EU average Norway Kosovo Portugal France Montenegro CABA (Argentina) Jordan Croatia Germany United Kingdom Israel Sweden United States Belgium Ireland Canada Singapore Australia New Zealand Switzerland Hong Kong (China) Qatar United Arab Emirates Luxembourg Macao (China) % Percentage of students with a recent experience of family migration in PISA 2015, by category Second generation migrant First generation immigrant students Native with a mixed heritage Return foreign-born students

12 Change between 2003 and 2015 in the coverage of 15-year-olds Grade 7 and higher, selected PISA participating countries Coverage of the national 15-year-old population (PISA Coverage index 3) Change between 2015 and 2003 or earliest available year (PISA PISA 2003) Country PISA 2003 PISA 2006 PISA 2009 PISA 2012 PISA 2015 Coverage index 3 Total population of 15- year-olds Weighted number of participating students Index Index Index Index Index % dif. Absolute dif. % dif. Absolute dif. % dif. OECD Mexico Turkey Partners Brazil Colombia m Costa Rica m m Indonesia Malaysia m m Peru m m Thailand Uruguay Viet Nam m m m Source: PISA 2015, 2012, 2009, 2006, Note: Coverage index 3 is the percentage of the national population of 15-year-olds who are represented in the PISA sample (see OECD [forthcoming], PISA 2015 Technical report).

13 Turkey B-S-J-G (China) CABA (Argentina) Viet Nam Mexico Georgia Thailand Chinese Taipei Brazil Japan Dominican Republic Colombia Macao (China) Singapore Chile Jordan Korea Indonesia Hong Kong (China) United Arab Emirates Israel Algeria Trinidad and Tobago Qatar France Lebanon Montenegro Hungary Kosovo Tunisia Peru Costa Rica Albania Uruguay Romania Spain FYROM Canada OECD average Slovenia United States Portugal Netherlands New Zealand Australia Estonia Germany Bulgaria Croatia Moldova Ireland Poland United Kingdom Lithuania Czech Republic Norway Greece Sweden Italy Russia Slovak Republic Denmark Luxembourg Latvia Iceland Switzerland Malta Belgium Finland Number of students Average class size in PISA

14 Greece Macao (China) Latvia Hong Kong (China) Indonesia Uruguay Chile Colombia Slovak Republic Montenegro Chinese Taipei Estonia Tunisia Israel Croatia Iceland Slovenia Korea Thailand Norway Finland Qatar Italy Luxembourg Poland Brazil Hungary OECD average Czech Republic Spain Canada Germany Jordan United Kingdom Belgium Japan New Zealand Lithuania Sweden Australia United States Russia Bulgaria Switzerland Romania Ireland Mexico Netherlands Denmark Portugal Turkey Change in class size between 2006 and

15 Trends in science, reading and mathematics performance: Turkey Score points 750 Science Reading Mathematics Average performance 700 Linear trend 650 Edges of dark- and light-blue areas reflect the scores of the 90th, 75th, 25th and 10th percentile in science, reading and mathematics

16 Albania Costa Rica Indonesia Brazil Colombia Romania Israel Portugal Russia Turkey Jordan Score-point difference Average three-year trend in median science performance since 2006, after accounting for changes in coverage (47) Average three-year trend in median performance, after accounting for changes in coverage Average three-year trend in mean performance Students not covered by the PISA sample are assumed to perform in the bottom half of the performance distribution

17 Change in the percentage of variation in science performance explained by ESCS ( ) Change between 2006 and 2015 in the strength of the socio-economic gradient and average 3-year trend in science performance -8 Performance declined Performance improved Slovak Rep. Luxembourg Netherlands Chile Turkey Bulgaria United States Denmark Iceland Lithuania Montenegro Uruguay Greece France New Zealand Poland Jordan OECD average Romania Hong Kong (China) Switzerland Estonia Portugal Belgium Latvia Russia Australia Croatia Ireland Italy Macao (China) Norway Tunisia Hungary Canada Spain Israel Sweden Chinese Taipei Japan Finland Czech Rep. Germany United Kingdom Korea Slovenia Thailand Mexico Brazil Indonesia Colombia Qatar Average 3-year trend in science performance (score-point difference) Equity improved Equity declined

18 Singapore Japan Estonia Chinese Taipei Finland Macao (China) Canada Viet Nam Hong Kong (China) B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway United States France Sweden OECD average-35 Czech Republic Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia CABA (Argentina) Iceland Israel Malta Slovak Republic Greece Chile Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania Moldova Albania Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Georgia Jordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia FYROM Kosovo Algeria Dominican Republic Figure I.4.2 Performance in science Score points 550 Mean science performance Confidence interval (95%)

19 Dominican Republic CABA (Argentina) Peru Singapore France Hungary B-S-J-G (China) Luxembourg Chile Bulgaria Belgium Czech Republic Slovak Republic Germany Switzerland Chinese Taipei New Zealand Spain Japan Portugal Poland Australia Israel Uruguay OECD average Malta Ireland Greece Jordan Lebanon Romania Slovenia Costa Rica Italy Mexico Finland Georgia Netherlands Sweden Brazil Moldova Lithuania Canada Qatar United States Denmark Colombia Indonesia Korea Norway Tunisia United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Russia Croatia Trinidad and Tobago FYROM Viet Nam Turkey Estonia Hong Kong (China) Latvia Montenegro Kosovo Iceland Thailand Macao (China) Algeria Across OECD countries, disadvantaged students are almost 3 times more likely to not attain the baseline level of proficiency in science Odds ratio 7 Increased likelihood of students in the bottom quarter of ESCS scoring below Level 2 in science, relative to non-disadvantaged students (3 other quarters of ESCS)

20 Access and Quality in Education: Evidence from PISA on the learning outcomes of students with an immigrant background

21 Macao (China) -11 Qatar 15 Luxembourg 16 Hong Kong (China) -9 Switzerland 9 Canada 9 New Zealand 6 Australia 3 United States 8 7 Belgium 4 Israel -6 Sweden 7 Germany 3 United Kingdom 8 Ireland 9 France OECD average 3 Jordan -5 Norway 6 Spain 4 Croatia Greece 3 Netherlands Denmark 3 Estonia -2 Italy 4 Slovenia -2 Portugal Russia -2 Three points increase in the percentage of immigrant students between 2006 and 2015 across OECD countries (from 9.4% to 12.5%) % 80 Percentage of students with an immigrant background Change ( ) in the percentage of immigrant students is statistically significant

22 Qatar 10 New Zealand Ireland 13 Canada -5 United Kingdom Australia Germany Belgium 13 Denmark 16 Portugal Israel -18 Russia OECD average Jordan -16 Sweden -13 Luxembourg 15 France Hong Kong (China) 9 Netherlands Norway -23 Italy -29 Slovenia Switzerland Spain -33 Greece United States Macao (China) -11 On average, 57% of first-generation immigrant students have at least one parent who attended school for as many years as the average parent in the host country % percentage of first-generation immigrant students with a parent as educated as the average parent in the host country

23 Estonia Hong Kong (China) Canada Singapore Macao (China) Switzerland Germany Denmark Slovenia Ireland Belgium New Zealand United Kingdom Netherlands Norway Spain Luxembourg Australia Sweden Portugal United States Russia France CABA (Argentina) OECD average Italy Croatia Israel Greece Costa Rica Jordan United Arab Emirates Qatar Percentage of low performers (below proficiency Level 2) 39% of first-generation immigrant students and 29% of second-generation immigrant students perform below the PISA baseline level (this is 19% for non-immigrant students) Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students 80 Percentage of low performers in science, by immigrant background

24 Israel Slovenia Germany Sweden Norway Greece United States Denmark Ireland Canada Australia New Zealand OECD average Finland Belgium United Kingdom Portugal Hungary Luxembourg Spain France Italy Switzerland Mexico Kazakhstan Russian Federation Croatia Montenegro Jordan Singapore Hong Kong-China Macao-China Dubai Qatar PISA score-point difference in reading compared with immigrant students who arrived at or below age 5 Students who arrived at age 12 or older lag farther behind than students who arrived at younger ages. Reading proficiency, by age at arrival Arrived age 6-11 Arrived age 12 or older Late-arrival premium Late-arrival penalty Immigrants who arrived at age 12 or older performed 20 points lower than those who arrived below age 5-100

25 Learning and living conditions at destination play a significant role in helping immigrant students fully develop their academic potential status Second-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic First-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic status Students from Bosnia and Herzegovina in: Students from Arabic-speaking countries in: Croatia Montenegro Students from Poland in: Netherlands United Arab Emirates Finland Denmark Qatar Students from Albania in: Germany Greece Switzerland United Kingdom Mean science performance Montenegro Mean science performance

26 Students from Turkey in: Students from mainland China in: Netherlands Switzerland Germany Belgium Denmark Students from Russia in: Australia New Zealand Hong Kong (China) Macao (China) Netherlands Mean science performance Finland Latvia Czech Republic Second-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic status First-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic status Mean science performance

27 and their sense of belonging at school Students from Arabic speaking countries in: Sense of belonging Students from Iraq in: Students from China in: Students from Albania in: Finland Netherlands United Arab Emirates Qatar Denmark Finland Denmark New Zealand Australia Hong Kong-China Macao-China Greece Switzerland Students from Bosnia and Herzegovina in: Croatia Montenegro Students from the Russian Federation in: Students from Turkey in: Finland Latvia Finland Netherland Switzerland Germany Denmark Belgium %

28 Switzerland Belgium Slovenia Netherlands Estonia Germany Luxembourg Croatia Russia Portugal France Greece OECD average Costa Rica Canada United Kingdom Jordan Denmark New Zealand Australia Hong Kong (China) Spain Norway Ireland Italy United States Singapore Sweden CABA (Argentina) Israel Macao (China) United Arab Emirates Qatar It is the concentration of socio-economic disadvantage, and not the concentration of immigrants per se, that has detrimental effects on school performance Concentration of immigrant students and student performance Score-point diff. 100 After accounting for socio-economic profile Before accounting for socio-economic profile once background factors are accounted for, this negative association with performance disappears entirely Before taking into account schools socio-economic socioeconomic intake, a higher concentration of immigrant students is associated with a 18-point lower score -80

29 Mean science performance There is no relation between the percentage of immigrant students and education systems' average performance Slovenia Singapore Portugal Estonia Canada Australia New Zealand Hong Kong (China) Russia Switzerland United States Italy Croatia CABA (Argentina) Greece Israel Costa Rica Belgium Jordan Denmark Netherlands OECD average France Spain Germany Sweden Ireland United Kingdom 1.8, 332 R² = 0.09 Luxembourg United Arab Emirates Qatar Macao-China Percentage of immigrant students

30 Schools can make the difference for integration by teaching openness and understanding Schools can provide opportunities for young people to learn about global developments that affect the world and their lives; teach students how they can develop a fact-based and critical worldview of today; equip students with the means to access and analyse a broad range of cultural practices and meanings; engage students in experiences that facilitate international and intercultural relations; promote the value of diversity, which in turn encourages sensitivity, respect and appreciation.

31 Thank you! For more information: