Sustainable educational policy for multicultural societies Comparative study of the Czech Rep. and Scotland laubeova/anglicky/research/PHD.htm.

Sustainable educational policy for multicultural societies

Comparative study of the Czech Rep. and Scotland

http://instituty.fsv.cuni.cz/~laubeova/anglicky/research/PHD.htm

Laura Laubeová

Thesis structure• Theories & concepts (minority, race, racism,

multiculturalism, politics of recognition, equity, cost benefit analysis)

• Czech Republic from multicultural perspective + education

• Scottish race equality and inclusive education

• Comparative framework 3+1 models:

– Assimilation, Multiculturalism, Equity/Rights, Exclusion

• Teacher education compared

• Summary of equality policies, bodies, acts + edu

• Policy recommendations and priorities

Key research questions (RQ)

1. What theories could provide background for “race equality*“ education?

2. How is “multicultural“ education defined?– Relevance for Roma education– Using comparison with Scotland

3. What are the relevant policies, bodies, instruments?

4. What is the role of teacher education?

5. Are Romani pupils included or segregated?

* multicultural/ inclusive /intercultural/ equitable

Theories and key concepts (RQ No 1)

Nancy Fraser• Social redistribution• Cultural recognition• Political participationNone can be reducedc.f.Marshal´s concept of human rights (civil, political,

social)Birch´s levels of integration (Barša, Zhřívalová)

Cultural recognition

• Compromise between liberals (Kymlicka) and communitarians (Taylor)

• Diferentiated citizenship (Fraser, Kymlicka)• Equality as diferentiated treatment (Parekh)• Equity- several complementing aspects• Issues of racism and denial

Efficiency and equity

Education may be the main (sometimes the only) vehicle to reduce inequalities and exclusion, but on the other hand it may often perpetuate it.

European Expert Network on Economics of Education (after the 2006 Spring European Council)

Human and social capital theoriesMonetary + Non-monetary (non-market) effects• effects for the INDIVIDUAL • effects for the ECONOMY and SOCIETY

Equity: equitable systems ensure that the outcomes of education and training are independent of socio-economic background and other factors, and that treatment reflects individuals’ specific learning needs

Efficiency: systems are efficient if the inputs produce the maximum outputs

The costs of inequities/ Cost-benefit analysis

In the US

Symposium at Columbia University

Costs of a drop out : € 350 000

In the EU

UK figures: Costs of a drop out in terms of productivity

REF: Study on the benefits of investing in Roma Education in Hungary, OECD Review Hungary

Equity and efficiency are complementary, no trade-off relationship

Age

Rate of

return

Pre-school Primary & Higher Adult education Secondary education education

Children from low socio-economic

background

Children from high socio-economic background

Efficiency and equity in lifelong learning strategies Returns to a Euro spent at different levels of education

European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE), 2006:11

Hungary

Expected Long-term Budgetary benefits to Roma Education in Hungary. REF, Sept 2006

International evidence (Heckman, 2006, Perry Preschool Program US)

Net budgetary benefits:Investment that enables a young Roma to

complete secondary school (benchmark: starting at the age 4)

Educational attainments – 5 levels (max 7 grades, completed basic edu, vocational, secondary w. maturity, college)

Hungary Report -Cont.Accounts throught which a person contributes to or

receives from the central budget 1. personal income tax, 2. social security contributions, 3. unemployment insurance receipt, 4. means tested welfare benefits, 5. public employment projects participation, 6. VAT and excise tax paind after consumption,7. incarceration costs if sentenced + Account of government expenditures due to

extra secondary schooling and college

OECD Definition of Equity

• Fairness--personal and social circumstances are not an obstacle to educational success

• Inclusion--minimum standard of education for all

• Small variation in achievement between all schools no matter where they are located

• Small variation within schools no matter the social background of the students

• High achievement for all young peopleFair and Inclusive Education: The OECD Manual Draft 3/23/07

Index of Separation Between Schools

Index of separation between schools (2003)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Finlan

d

Norway

Sweden

New Z

ealan

d

Icelan

d

Canad

a

United

King

dom

1

Switzer

land

Denm

ark

Russia

n Fed

erat

ion

Irelan

d

United

Sta

tes

Nethe

rland

s

Poland

Luxe

mbo

urg

Portu

gal

Spain

Austra

lia

Japa

n

Greec

eIta

ly

Korea

Czech

Rep

ublic

Germ

any

Belgium

Austri

a

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Mex

ico

Turk

ey

Hunga

ry

Index of separation between schools (2003)

Students with lowest SES likely to be lowest math performers

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Icelan

d

Turk

ey

Canad

a

Japa

n

Greec

e

Finlan

d

Norway

Sweden

Spain

Portu

gal

Italy

Austri

a

Poland

Austra

lia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Korea

New Z

ealan

d

Irelan

d

Nethe

rland

s

United

Sta

tes

Switzer

land

Mex

ico

Denm

ark

Czech

Rep

ublic

Franc

e

Germ

any

Hunga

ry

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Belgium

Od

ds

Ra

tio

Likelihood of students with the lowest SES to be lowest maths performers when compared to the likelihood of students with high SES

Defining multicultural education MCE

Comparison of 3 modelsScotland: race equality education, inclusive

education, additional learning support, based on the rights/equity model, i.e to the right to be educated to the fullest potential

Czech R: MCE reduced to immigrants; inclusive education reduced to the disability strand; Romani pupils reduced to social disadvantage

Differing models

From assimilationist policies to inclusiveness:

• Assimilationist model• Assimilation, Social Integration

• Curriculum (Multiculturalism) model • Pluralism, recognition

• Equity/Rights Model• Anti discriminatory; but:

• Exclusion/Segregation

Assimilationist model

DIFFERENCE DEFICIT

COMPENSATORY PROGRAMMESDoes the individual fit

into the System or ‘Institution’? 

ASSIMILATIONASSIMILATION

Curriculum (Multiculturalism) model Cultural Effects

 CULTURES

LIFESTYLES ATTITUDES

TOLERANCE AND HARMONY Does the organisation of this ‘institution’

recognise Diversity ?   

PLURALISTPLURALIST

Equity/Rights Model

Social and Political Effects

 EQUITY PARTICIPATION

LIFE CHANCESAre people enabled in this ‘institution’?

Do the structures allow for

achievement, growth and opportunities?

ANTIDISCRIMINATORYANTIDISCRIMINATORY

Social exclusion model Social handicap

 POVERTY

DIFFERENCE DEFICIT

DENIAL OF THE PROBLEM Can the group be made invisible? Can the damage

incurred by the group be limited?   

SEGREGATIONSEGREGATION

Policies, instruments (RQ No 3 & 4)

• Laws (Antidiscrimination Bill CR, Race relations Acts, Equality Act 2006; international law)

• Enforcement mechanisms (race equality schemes)

• Policy documents• Educational Law• Documents relevant for teacher education

Summary in chapter 9

Teacher Education as compared between CR and Scotland

• Teacher competencies

• Standards in ITE (initial teacher education) and CPD (continuing professional development)

• Career system

• Chartered teacher status

Key findings re RQ No 5

School Act 2004 abolished the Zvlastni schools (remedial schools for mild mental disabilities) that were replaced by Basic practical schools.

Pre- Reform (2004-2005): 64% of pupils at all special schools were at „zvlastni“ schools

Post reform (2005-2006) : 73% of pupils at all special schools were at basic practical schools

i.e. 9% increaseSource: UIV Výkonové ukazatele (on-line)

Pupils at ordinary basic schools, in special schools and in remedial schools (mild mental disability- ADHD)

  2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006**

BASIC education schools pupils schools pupils schools pupils

Total basic schools C1.1. 4 838 998 731 4 765 958 860 4 474 916 575

Ordinary schools C2.1. 3 870 956 324 3 785 917 738 3 741 881 676

in per cent* 80,0 95,8 79,4 95,7 83,6 96,2

Special schools C3.1 898 41 039 910 39 798 670 33 806

in per cent* 18,6 4,1 19,1 4,2 15,0 3,7Out of which zvlastni schools C3.3 or practical schools C3.7

411 26 475 398 25 581 378 24 761

in percent* 8,5 2,7 8,4 2,7 8,4 2,7

in percent out of C3.1 45,8 64,5 43,7 64,3 56,4 73,2*out of the total number of basic schools (C1.1)** in 20052006 a change occurred as a result of the School Act 2004 that renamed zvlastni skoly C3.3. to basic practical schools C3.7.

Eurydice report

„Former zvláštní schools… where children from underprivileged socio-economic backgrounds had been often educated can be still established as a separate basic school or as a type of basic school - basic practical school, which provides education according to an annex to the educational programme for basic education… Nevertheless, measures have been taken to reduce number of pupils placed in such schools…

(Eurydice, 2007:236, chapter 10.6.4.)

CERD concluding observations March 2007

„The Committee is deeply concerned by consistent information according to which the Roma suffer from racial segregation on the State party’s territory in the field of education, a situation that the State party does not seem to fully acknowledge.“

Denial of continuing racial segregation (cf. CERD 1998 on de-facto segregation, FCNM, ERRC, DH vs CR)

„The State party should, within one year, provide information on the way it has followed up on the Committee’s recommendations„Instead of 5 years (regular report)

(CERD, 2007)

Framework Education Programmes for Basic Education FEP BE

Annex to FEPBE is FEP BE LMD* (RVP ZV-LMP, 2005)

The curriculum in basic practical schools

for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mild mental disabilities.

Framework timetable - higher allocation of hours for manual work rather than language and science.

the first stage: 15 hours of manual work,

the second stage: 20 hours

instead of 5 hours and 4 hours respectively, for pupils in “ordinary” basic school.

(Ramcový, 2005a,b)• LMD - light mental disfunction, i.e. mild mental disability, ADHD (LMP lehke mozkove poskozeni)

FEP BE

LMP*FEP BE LMP*

educational areas educational fields

1st stage 2nd stage

years 1 - 5 years 6 - 9and corresponding years of

lower secondary school

minimum number of hours

Language and language communication

Czech language and literature

38 33* 16 19*

Foreign language 9 0* 12 4*

People and the world of work5 15* 4 20*

Total compulsory number of hours118 118* 122 122*

* LMP - mild mental disability (Annex to the Framework educational programme for basic education, Rámcový, 2005b)

Framework timetable for Framework Edu. Prog. Basic Edu (FEP BE)

Recommendations – key principles

• Mainstreaming (e.g. mainstream the Decade of Roma inclusion into the Lisbon Agenda; or mainstream issues of ethnicity, gender, disability into all educational policies and processes)

• Inclusion (e.g. inclusion Roma at all levels of policy making and policy implementation; inclusion of all Romani children in ordinary schools)

• Equity and efficiency (with focus on different treatment to reach the same targets, OECD Jobs for the Future, cost benefit anlaysis REF)

• Compliance with international law (e.g. discrimination; right of child to be educated to their fullest potential)

• Multilevel governance principle applied to education (networking of teacher trainees, teachers, bureaucrats, NGOs on local, European and global levels)

Cont.

• OMC applied to education and used for setting indicators and benchmarks also on local level

• Education has gone beyond the realm of national interest as it has to be competitive in global markets (Lisbon agenda, Decade, UNDP, WB). Cultural traditions vs social change

• Focus on concrete implementation schemes (general duty complemented by specific duties)

• Focus on organisational (school) level • Replace the special needs concept with mainstreaming of additional

learning support that is available to all students cf inclusion• Discourse analysis (neo liberal newspeak)

Priorities

Policy makers should• acknowledge that there is a problem in Roma education

(discourse analysis, linguisitic/ translation isuues). • redefine understanding of racism, racial discrimination

and segregation so that these are in agreement with international academic discourse and with international law (CERD, 2007)

• redefine Roma children as a target group of education policy recipients so that it is not reduced to social or health disadvantage only.

Cont.

• Discontinue use of the catch-all category “mild degree of mental disability”

• Provide high quality education for Roma children • Create robust programmes with numerical goals and

appropriate supports to increase the number of Roma achieving maturita

(OECD, 2006:6)• To use findings of OECD thematic review of equity in

education in Hungary (2006) and the REF budgetary benefit report

REF Summary Education reform policies with risk for Roma

• Competition among schools to achieve quality - and free parental choice of schools:

• Roma children most often in low quality segregated schools

• Decentralization of education:• Local decision making bears biases, funding of education at risk in low income municipalities

• Early tracking to allow full development of talented children:• Most often becomes a social exclusion policy

• External school leaving examinations• Without free of charge additional tuition and support Roma can get increasingly excluded

• Curriculum reform for school based flexibility• Can result in lower standards of education in schools with Roma children

Call for vigilance in respect of impact on education of Roma Call for compensatory policies

REF Summary- cont. Cross-sectorial policies in background

A) Special focus: Antidiscrimination legislation

Lack shows:• Lack of political consensus• Lack of framework for antidiscrimination measures in education• Lack of enforcing mechanisms• Lack of background for advocacy

B) Political representationC) Connections to health, social care, employment, civil registration

Education development needs to rely on development in other areas as well. Especially critical: antidiscrimination legislation

REF Summary- conclusions

• Abundance of already structured experiences (roundtables)• General inclusion policies set as framework everywhere (except antidiscrimination legislation)

• Commitment without system or system without commitment

• Needed:– Development of targeted “middle range” policies (e.g. transfer from special to regular school)– Development of implementation policies (e.g. compulsory preschool for each child)– Much stronger commitment to scaling up useful improvements (e.g. scale up desegregation)– Fine-tuning of policies based on monitoring results (e.g. set appropriate funding formula)– Setting up sustainable implementing mechanisms (e.g. mentoring as part of teacher workload)

– Policy research, evaluation of pilots – Much closer connection of “Roma policies” to “education policies” – Much clearer focus on equity in designing new education reform policies – Much more, and more meaningful, and targeted exchange of experiences in order to build on results

OECD: Equity requires some central regulation

• Decentralization is a strong tendency in the Decade Countries

• Decentralization can lead to unregulated choice of schools and increased selection

• Selection and choice reinforce one another**• THE RESULT= Greater inequities

**Definitions: families choose, schools selectFair and Inclusive Education: The OECD Manual Draft 3/23/07

Research and practice show:

Unregulated choice (often premised on “market driven” competition) results in:

• Poor quality education, weaker results• Lack of benefit from peer group effects• Stigmatizing some students and schools• Unreliable sorting (assessing children’s ability at a

young age) OECD,2007