International Education

Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Behind Singapore’s PISA rankings success – and why other countries may not want to join the race

This article was written by Amanda Wise

Singapore has topped the global Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings in maths, science and reading, while countries including Australia, France and the UK sit in the bottom batch of OECD countries for achievement in these areas.

So what is Singapore doing right, and do other countries want to emulate it?

Clearly there are things to learn. Singapore has invested heavily in its education system. Its teachers are the best and brightest, and it has developed highly successful pedagogic approaches to science, maths, engineering and technology (STEM) teaching, such as the “Maths Mastery” approach.

Culturally, Singaporeans have a strong commitment to educational achievement and there is a national focus on educational excellence.

Success in PISA rankings and other global league tables are an important part of the Singapore “brand”. Singaporean academic Christopher Gee calls this the “educational arms race”. Highly competitive schooling is the norm.

Role of private tuition

Public discussion in Australia around why we are not doing as well as the Singaporeans is largely focused on what goes on in that country’s schools.

Yet there is one thing missing from the reporting on Singapore’s success: the role of private tuition (private tutors and coaching colleges) and the part it plays in the overall success of students in the tiny city-state. Here are some startling figures:

  • 60% of high school, and 80% of primary school age students receive private tuition.
  • 40% of pre-schoolers receive private tuition.
  • Pre-schoolers, on average, attend two hours private tuition per week, while
    primary school aged children are attending, on average, at least three hours per week.

That’s right. Eight out of ten primary school aged students in Singapore receive private tuition, either by way of private tuition or coaching colleges.

In 1992, that figure was around 30% for high school and 40% for primary school. The hours spent in tuition increase in late primary school, and middle-class children attend more hours than less well-off families.

The number of private coaching colleges has also grown exponentially in the last decade, with 850 registered centres in 2015, up from 700 in 2012.

Impact on family income

According to Singapore’s Household Expenditure Survey, private tuition in Singapore is a SGD$1.1 billion dollar industry (for a nation with a population of about 5.6 million) almost double the amount households spent in 2005 ($650 million). How does that look at the household level?

34% of those with children currently in tuition spend between $500 (AU$471) and $1,000 (AU$943) per month per child, while 16% spend up to $2,000.

Considering the bottom 5th quintile of households earn about $2,000 (AU$1,886) per month – the next quintile around $5,000 (AU$4,716) – this is a very large chunk of the family budget.

Imagine a family with two or three children and we get a sense of the potential socioeconomic inequalities at work when educational success depends on private tuition.

Surveys show that only 20% of those in the lowest two income brackets (a monthly income of less than $4,000) have a child in tuition.

One of the major tuition centre chains with outlets in shopping malls across Singapore. Author provided

Tuition centres

Tuition centres and coaching colleges range from more affordable neighbourhood and community based centres to large national “branded” coaching colleges with outlets in major shopping malls across the island.

The quality of tuition received is very much linked to how much one can afford to pay. It is big business.

The marketing strategies of the coaching colleges are very good at inducing anxiety in parents about fear of failure unless they are willing to pay to help their children get ahead.

Many parents complain that the schools “teach beyond the text”. That is, there is a perception that some teachers assume all the kids in the class are receiving tuition and thus teach above the curriculum level. Imagine the impact on those few children who are not receiving extra help.

Why does this start in pre-school and primary?

Singapore’s Primary School Leaving Exam (PSLE) is a seriously high-stakes exam that determines not just what high school a child will enter, but whether a child is streamed into a school that will fast track them to university.

Singaporeans do not have an automatic right to enrol their children into the “local” high school.

All high schools are selective and the best schools have the pick of the PSLE crop.
Primary students are streamed into four types of high school : the top ones feed students direct to university via the A-Level exams, while the bottom “technical” and “normal stream” schools feed into the institutes of technical education and polytechnics, with a much more complex pathway towards university.

Advertising poster for one of Singapore’s leading chain of coaching colleges ‘Mindchamps’. Author provided

The PSLE exam induces in 11 and 12 year olds the same level of anxiety seen in teenagers sitting the Higher School Certificate (HSC) or Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) in Australia.

Many middle-class parents believe the “race” starts early.

Parents are increasingly expected to have their pre-school aged child reading and writing, and with basic maths skills before they even enter school – and this is frequently achieved through private pre-schools and “enrichment” tuition.

While there is much to genuinely admire about Singapore’s educational success story, there is a question about the role of private enterprise (private coaching colleges) in shaping childhoods and stoking parental anxieties.

A potential concern when private tuition reaches saturation point is that schools come to assume the level of the “coached child” as the baseline for classroom teaching.

Many Singaporean parents I have spoken to bemoan the hyper-competitive environment that forces their children into hours of extra tuition, impacting on family time and relationships and reducing opportunities for childhood free play, developing friendships and simply getting some decent rest. Many feel they have no choice.

Singaporeans have a term for this pathology: “Kiasu”, which means “fear of falling behind or losing out”. Policymakers, and indeed reporting, needs to be cognisant of exactly what produces these outlying educational success stories.

This is not to argue Singapore’s success is entirely due to out of school coaching. Singaporean schooling excels on many fronts. However given the levels of private tuition, it needs to be seen as a key part of the mix.

The Conversation

Amanda Wise, Associate professor, Macquarie University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

NAPLAN results reveal little change in literacy and numeracy performance – here are some key takeaway findings

This article was written by Suzanne Rice

The national report on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) outcomes has been released today, showing the test results of Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9.

The report outlines student achievement in reading, numeracy, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, and shows performance has stagnated.

Around 95% percent of students are included in NAPLAN results, meaning they provide a reasonable guide to how well Australian students are learning core skills.

Other than Year 9 writing, over the last few years, overall Australian achievement has flatlined – it hasn’t gone backwards but nor has it improved.

Here is a breakdown of the findings for each year group that’s assessed:

Year 3

Student performance in Year 3 reading and spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved since 2008.

Boys are on average doing better than girls in numeracy, but girls on average do better in reading, writing, grammar and punctuation, and spelling.

Since 2008, reading scores in Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria, Queensland, and West Australia have improved.

Year 5

Student performance in reading and numeracy is significantly better in 2016 than it was in 2008. Average reading scores rose from 484.4 in 2008 to 501.5 in 2016. Numeracy scores rose from 475.9 in 2008 to 493.1 in 2016.

Reading scores in Tasmania, Victoria, West Australia and Queensland improved between 2008 and 2016. Girls on average scored higher than boys in writing, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, but not in reading.

Year 7

Overall, there has been little change in any area for Year 7 students since 2008. Girls on average scored higher than boys in some of the literacy domains.

Year 9

Numeracy and reading achievement has remained the same for Year 9 students since 2008.

Writing achievement has decreased since 2011, however, there have been changes in the genre examined over this time – from narrative writing to persuasive writing – so this may be influencing the results. From 2016 the genre returned to narrative writing.

Students from non-English speaking backgrounds:

In a number of cases the achievement of students from non-English speaking backgrounds tends to have a bigger spread than that of students whose parents’ first language is English. Our strongest students from non-English speaking backgrounds are doing very well, but there is a long achievement tail.

Indigenous students

Indigenous students are still achieving well below non-Indigenous students.

Over the past 9 years, there has been some improvement for Indigenous students in Years 3 and 5 in reading, and in Year 5 numeracy. But as with the national data, the improvements appeared in the first few years of NAPLAN and there has not been much progress recently.

Impact of parents’ education

Student achievement analysed by their parents’ education and employment makes familiar reading.

The report shows that the higher the parents’ levels of qualifications, and the higher their level of employment, the better their children do in school.

In most cases, the biggest gap is between the achievement of students whose parents completed Year 12, and those whose parents finished school in Year 11.

Does location make a difference?

On average, students based at schools in major cities perform the best. This is followed by those in inner regional locations, then outer regional locations. In remote and very remote areas, average achievement is lowest.

These results tell us that as a country we are not doing particularly well at neutralising the effects of disadvantage, whether this is through location or as reflected in levels of parental education and occupation.

The recent PISA results already showed us that Australian education does not do well on equity compared to similar countries like Canada.

Our school systems are not good at reducing the influence of students’ home backgrounds on their achievement. We need to try harder here.

This is likely to require a range of government actions that include a more equitable school funding regime, quality targeted teacher professional learning, and actions to reduce the class divisions that riddle our education systems.

What doesn’t it tell us?

While the report tells us a lot about the impact of broad factors such as student background, it can’t provide information on what is happening at a school level, or the reasons behind the general lack of improvement over the last few years.

Establishing why student achievement has flatlined is a complex business and is not covered by the data collected or the analyses.

Where to?

There are two important responses to the report that governments can take.

First, we could apply what we know is likely to improve student achievement across the board: supporting quality teacher professional learning based on our knowledge about improving student learning from the work of people like education expert John Hattie.

Second, we can and must do more to reduce the impact students’ home backgrounds has on their achievement.

A funding system that targets funding much more strongly to high-needs students and schools is important.

Research shows that individual student background has an impact on achievement, but so does the mix of students in a school. Australia’s education system has become increasingly stratified.

So policies promoting a mix of student backgrounds in our schools, for example, by requiring that all schools enroll a percentage of students from more disadvantaged backgrounds to receive funding, would be another place to start.

The Conversation

Suzanne Rice, Senior Lecturer, Education Policy and Leadership, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

PISA results don’t look good, but before we panic let’s look at what we can learn from the latest test

This article was written by Stewart Riddle and Bob Lingard

The 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results have been released – and on first glance, it does not look good for Australia.

On global comparisons, Australia performed equal 10th in science (down from 8th in 2012), 20th in maths (down from 17th) and 12th in reading (down from 10th).

There is a steady decline in the results since 2000, both in terms of overly simple international comparisons and absolute mean scores.

No doubt, similar to the response to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results last week, the media, politicians and education commentators will go into a panic over Australia sliding down the international rankings, falling standards in classrooms, and poor quality teachers.

Beyond the panicked headlines, what can we actually learn from the results of an international test that compares 15 year olds’ science, maths and reading skills in 72 countries and economies?

We need to have a more considered discussion about these test results rather than leaping to quick conclusions about a failing education system.

Scientific literacy

The main domain of the 2015 test was scientific literacy – the application of scientific knowledge and skills to solve problems.

Australia’s average score was 510, significantly above the OECD average of 493.

However, there has been an overall decline of 17 points since 2006. With the exception of the Northern Territory and Tasmania, most states performed well above the OECD average.

Singapore achieved the highest score of 556, which equates to roughly one and a half years more schooling than Australia.

While 61% of Australian students achieved the National Proficient Standard, only 11% were high performers (OECD average was 8%) and 18% were low performers (OECD average was 21%). This suggests that the majority of students might be doing okay, but few are excelling.

Mathematical literacy

The OECD average for mathematical literacy was 490, with Australia achieving 494. This is significantly below 19 other countries, including Singapore at 564 points. This is the equivalent of two and a half years more schooling.

The number of students reaching the National Proficient Standard in mathematical literacy was 61% in the Australian Capital Territory, but only 44% in Tasmania.

Reading literacy

Singapore achieved the highest result of 535 in reading literacy, equating to about one year more of schooling than Australia’s score of 503. The OECD average was 493.

Once again, the Northern Territory and Tasmania performed significantly below the OECD average, while all other states gained much higher results. Also, the spread between the lowest and highest Australian performers was significantly wider than the OECD average.

What the results mean

It is unhelpful to use the single country ranking to determine how we are going as there are significant variances between states/territories and school sectors (government, independent, Catholic).

Instead, we need to carefully disaggregate the data and consider the social and economic factors that influence performance across states, between schools, as well as the correlations between gender, Indigeneity, class, race, geographical location, and so on.

Australia has one of the widest ranges of student achievement, with what can be described as a long tail of underachievement.

For example, the difference in performance of students from the Australian Capital Territory and those in Tasmania and the Northern Territory is worth considering.

These differences are similar to those evident in performance on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN).

Furthermore, there is a difference of nearly three years of schooling between students in the highest socioeconomic quartile and the lowest, with similar differences when comparing Indigenous with non-Indigenous students.

Interestingly, boys only marginally outperformed girls on scientific literacy, with girls significantly outperforming boys on reading literacy, with no real difference on mathematical literacy.

It is also interesting to note that since the PISA tests began in 2000, the major federal education policy levers have included:

  • Significantly increased federal funding to private schools under John Howard, followed by a commitment by Julia Gillard that no school would lose a dollar.
  • Failure to implement Gonski’s needs-based funding of all schools.
  • The introduction of NAPLAN, MySchool, the Australian Curriculum and the AITSL national teaching standards by the Rudd-Gillard governments.
  • Increased emphasis on market measures for school provision, such as Independent Public Schools and school autonomy.

Yet over this time, the narrative of steady decline on PISA and TIMSS results continues, while educational inequality is on the rise.

Australia has one of the most segregated schooling systems in the world, and the OECD data provide a strong correlation between high-performing systems such as Singapore and factors of social cohesion and equity.

Further evidenced in secondary analysis of all PISA data over time is the strength of the correlation between equitable funding of schools and systemic performance on PISA.

If we want to address these sliding results then we must address the issue of educational inequality in Australia.

Social efficiency and social equity

There are competing tensions in the agenda of social efficiency and social equity, which is evident in how PISA results inform global and local education policy-making. This includes the emphasis on competing within a global knowledge economy.

It is worth noting how the economic rationalisation for greater educational equity plays out in the global policy field, particularly through testing regimes such as NAPLAN and PISA.

The challenge for policymakers, schools and teachers is how to respond to increasing pressure to lift test results on PISA, TIMSS and NAPLAN, while also addressing systemic inequality in order to ensure that every Australian student is given access to a meaningful
education.

Equitable funding of schools, including redistribution to schools serving disadvantaged communities, remains a pressing policy issue in Australia.

However, it is unlikely that we will see much more than panic and moral crusading in the media commentary over the coming days.

Once the hyperventilating dies down, we need to take a long, careful look at these results and what they mean for a more equitable and high-performing Australian schooling system.

The Conversation

Stewart Riddle, Senior Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland and Bob Lingard, Professorial Research Fellow, School of Education, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Why the TEF could change the way students think about a university education

This article was written by Chris Husbands

It is one of the remarkable transformations of our time: the world is going to university, and participation in higher education is increasing. On every continent, more young people are going to university than ever before, and increasing numbers are graduating. In the UK, over a third of 18-year-olds go to university – and that figure is higher in the US, Canada and Korea, and rising fast in China and Africa.

As a result, around the world, governments are challenging their university systems to play an ever greater part in generating knowledge, educating highly skilled workforces and building more cohesive societies.

At the same time, they are puzzling about how to afford mass higher education. And that situation opens up a potential gap, between the world of higher education providers and the world of stakeholders – who are demanding more, and demanding it more accessibly.

Teaching excellence

Universities are unique institutions – not just because they undertake research or because they teach – but because, uniquely, they do both. And great teaching matters – it matters to universities as much as it matters to schools and colleges. And for the first time the quality of teaching at English universities will be assessed as part of the introduction of the teaching excellence framework (TEF).

Of course, identifying and recognising high quality teaching is both simple and complex. Excellence in teaching is something we all know when we see it, but specifying what exactly it is turns out to be a more complex exercise.

The TEF addresses this in a sensible way. It does not set out to assess teaching quality directly, but to look for those features which are the consequence of high quality teaching and student engagement, such as strong student responses, high levels of progression and retention.

The TEF begins from a common sense position – that teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes are the right places to look for evidence of the impact universities have. It then derives “core metrics” from the annual National Student Survey and HESA data on student initial employment – and uses these to develop initial theories about the work universities are doing.

All of this will be overseen by a panel drawn from across and beyond the sector, applying its judgement and expertise – and I am the chair of the panel.

High stakes

The TEF brings the opportunity to create a structure to celebrate excellence, provide clearer market signals and enhance quality across the sector. And if we get it right, to give yet stronger signals to international students about the sheer quality to be found across UK higher education.

The UK government is clear that it wants to create a link between funding and teaching quality, which will provide opportunities to reinforce and celebrate quality. And this is an opportunity to enhance understanding of higher education and of the way teaching is developing in a responsive and fast-changing sector.

Of course there are potential risks, both for individual institutions and also to UK higher education as a global brand. That means that the panel has to get the process right, and navigate a route through a complicated mass of data on a diverse sector.

Much of the initial work has been focused on understanding and responding to sector concerns, and these matter a lot. But there are other interests, too, which is why there is student representation on the TEF panel – because we need to be alert to student concerns about the overall quality of provision. So although it is important to reflect sector concerns, it is also necessary for the sector to recognise that universities matter to others, too.

There is no denying that the stakes in the TEF are high – high for government, high for universities and high for UK higher education. But if it is designed properly, and managed effectively, the TEF can give us the opportunity to celebrate excellence and provide a common way to think about how it develops.

And with more and more young people going to university, it becomes all the more important to develop a framework we can use to communicate clearly what is going on in university teaching.

The Conversation

Chris Husbands, Vice Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

Free higher education won’t magically improve access

This article was written by P. Pratap Kumar

Many academics, including myself, have explored why free higher education is not economically viable in South Africa.

Money is not the only issue, though. Quality also matters. And the two go hand in hand. Students have hastened to conflate free education and access to quality education. But introducing free university education will not magically grant students access to quality education, nor employment in the marketplace. There’s a lot of work to be done to achieve this. And in my view this should take precedence over doing away with university fees.

This work will not only involve universities as institutions.

The starting point must be to improve the quality of basic and secondary education. South Africa’s basic education system faces serious problems and has done so for years.

Added to this is the fact that universities have become increasingly bureaucratic as well as driven by the need to raise money from fees. This makes them ever more expensive and beyond the reach of the vast majority of South Africans. Universities must return to their core business of teaching, research and learning rather than focusing on profit margins.

And, last but not least, there needs to be a shift in students’ attitudes: they must begin to value their access to universities.

Basic education is a mess

The basic education system compares poorly with others on the continent. It fares even worse when compared globally.

The country has too few teachers; those who are in classrooms are frequently under qualified and perform badly. Teacher to pupil ratios are extremely high and many public schools – particularly those in rural areas – lack even basic infrastructure like desks and books.

Against this backdrop, the relatively small number of students who eventually manage to enter university education are naturally ill-equipped to handle the complex nature of knowledge construction at a tertiary level. They struggle with literacy and numeracy and are in no way ready to tackle university assignments.

So, fundamental change must happen in the basic education sector. It’s no use making higher education free for all if those entering the system are not able to cope with its demands.

Universities aren’t corporate houses

While it is necessary to overhaul the basic education system, South Africa needs to also transform its educational institutions and make them affordable.

This will involve not just equipping students with the skills the country needs, but also making degrees affordable. The cost of higher education in South Africa has risen phenomenally in the last two decades.

According to a 2016 survey, a standard Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Social Science costs anywhere from R14 000 to an average of around R35 000. This is far beyond the reach of most South African households. By comparison, a standard Bachelor of Arts at one of Kenya’s biggest public universities currently costs the equivalent of R14 000 for a year.

Higher education must be seen to be within the reach of poor students who aspire to it. Universities are not corporate houses that need to be obsessed by profits and income. It’s not appropriate that they focus on things like “management and efficiency techniques and professional support for accountability, measurement, ‘product control’ and assessment” instead of teaching and research.

Corporatisation of the higher education system has led South Africa down the wrong path. Too much money is spent on paying senior managers and remunerating bloated administrative units.

With the ever-growing decrease in state funding for higher education, the universities are forced to depend on student fees, donor funding and other sources. There may be some justification that universities are profit driven to pay for the increasing costs of higher educational institutions.

But all this comes at a cost to students and the academic programme. It’s time to return the academic agenda – teaching and research – to the centre of university life.

Rethinking protest

It’s also important to remember that access to education is a two sided coin. It’s not enough for universities to open their doors; the people entering must also value their access. Yes, universities have a lot of work to do to ensure they are transformed. But there must also be a change in the culture of students.

Students must realise that South Africa is no longer fighting an external enemy like the apartheid system. Instead, citizens are fighting within a system of democracy. This means that the way the country protests needs to be rethought. In the past the means for legal protest weren’t easily available. There are now appropriate structures and institutions to seek redress and put pressure through peaceful protest and through democratic negotiations. The destruction of infrastructure that’s been seen at educational institutions in recent months will only deprive the future generations of access to education.

Politicians have a major role to play in changing this culture of protest, as do parents, traditional leaders, NGOs and other religious and cultural institutions, such as churches.

The Conversation

P. Pratap Kumar, Emeritus Professor, School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics, University of KwaZulu-Natal

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

Keeping girls at school may reduce teenage pregnancy and STIs – but sex education doesn’t

This article was written by Amanda Mason-Jones

Worldwide, more than 65m adolescent girls have no access to school. And it’s not just poorer countries that suffer from bad education. In the UK, one in five young people don’t complete post-16 education, making it one of the worst performing countries in league tables measuring how well young people are educated. This affects not only life chances but also health outcomes and well-being.

Studies conducted as far afield as the US, Norway and rural South Africa, for example, have suggested that encouraging school attendance can help young people avoid early sexual activity – and girls to avoid unplanned pregnancy. But this has never been confirmed by experimental evidence – until now.

A comprehensive Cochrane review of studies from around the world combined the data from more than 55,000 young people aged on average between 14 and 16. And it has shown that providing a small payment or giving away a free school uniform can incentivise the young to stay in school for longer, especially in places where there are financial barriers to attending.

Most significantly, it also reveals that the approach could prevent three in every ten pregnancies among that age group globally, and may also delay sexual activity and reduce sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in both girls and boys – although further high quality studies are needed to confirm this. Additionally, it suggests that the mainstay of the current approach – “sex education” – isn’t working to achieve these ends.

Sex education is failing

The studies in the Cochrane review were all randomised controlled trials from Europe, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Most were of high quality and had follow-ups at between 18 months and seven years.

The sex education programmes they investigated included peer and teacher-led education and the innovative uses of drama and group work. But most of the programmes did not provide access to the necessary health services, such as condoms or other contraception, especially for the youngest age groups.

What is clear is that we really don’t know what works and for whom when it comes to curriculum-based sex education in schools. We are often told that we do know, but the studies quoted previously have been based on self-reported behaviours of young people which are prone to bias.

Sex and sexuality are sensitive topics, especially when there are legal or moral ramifications for someone admitting to having sex. This new review, by contrast, has for the first time only included studies featuring measurable biological outcomes from records or tests of pregnancy and STIs. The fact that it points to sex education not working to reduce pregnancy and STIs among the young, therefore, is all the more significant. It seems we need a radical rethink.

Staying at school: a healthy contraceptive? Shutterstock

But what should be done? Most people agree that sex education should start early and focus on relationships, not just on the mechanics of sex. Most also agree that it should be inclusive and sensitive to a range of sexualities, including not assuming that all young people have started to have sex. Equally, few would disagree that we need to reform current approaches to take into account new risks from digital communications and social media, and that schools are a good place to encourage the development of healthy relationships.

However, MP Sarah Champion, whose Dare to Care national action plan calls for “compulsory resilience and relationships education” in UK schools, needs to consider this new evidence. She talks about young people needing “the tools to rebuff harmful requests and behaviour from abusers”. This focus solely on an individualised notion of resilience is flawed unless it incorporates more ecological and culturally sensitive definitions, and a clear understanding that it is not at all easy to “rebuff” violent approaches, especially in young people’s intimate relationships.

We need to build schools that are safe, welcoming and supportive – with adults, including parents, that are open and have the skills to talk to children about sexuality. We also need to think carefully about how the sexuality education offered by schools can effectively achieve its aims.

New ways of thinking about sex

Certainly, current strategies are failing. Talking about sex in schools doesn’t encourage young people to have sex, but equally – as the Cochrane review shows – it is not likely to delay them having it either, as some previous authors have suggested.

Some, for example, have claimed that programmes such as TeenStar, which encourage abstinence from sexual activity, are effective. But this conclusion is based on studies that are considered to have serious flaws.

The Cabezon study, for example, examined pregnancy outcomes from a programme in Chile that promoted abstinence from sexual activity. They suggested that the programme was successful by comparing the number of girls who were pregnant at the end of the study (19), with the number of pregnancies from a group who didn’t receive the programme (52). This made the programme look amazingly successful, but it excluded miscarriages and also illegal abortions that go unrecorded in Chile, so they were unlikely to have included all unwanted pregnancies that had occurred. The study also suffered from a number of biases including during randomisation and recruitment to the study, and selective reporting of the results.

In future, we need to rely on good quality evidence when developing public health policy. If sex education were to become compulsory, for example, it would be sensible to track its effectiveness experimentally to ensure that policies are working as expected.

While this study may highlight the failings of sex education at the moment, it also points to the effectiveness of school in general in the prevention of STIs and unwanted pregnancies. That, at least, is a good start.

The Conversation

Amanda Mason-Jones, Senior Lecturer in Global Public Health, University of York

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Early Childhood, International Education

How male teachers can help to challenge gender roles in nursery school education

This article was written by Jo Warin

Recent figures show that there is still a large gender gap in recruitment to the teaching profession – only 38% of secondary school teachers are male, and 26% in primaries. In preschools – or nursery – it’s even worse. Here, men make up just 2% of the workforce.

This gender divide can be found all across the globe, and not just in the UK. We even see it in Scandinavian countries which have made gender equality a national priority. In Norway, for example, there has been an ambitious target set to try and have 20% of men working in childcare, with 10% achieved in 2008. But that figure is now falling. The reasons for this are unclear but are likely to be due to persisting and deeply held gendered attitudes.

But to understand what we can learn from the men who do make this unusual career choice, I have been undertaking research in Swedish and UK nurseries. I have also been listening to their ideas about what puts most men off.

I was particularly struck by the story of Craig, an experienced nursery classroom leader in England, who was forced to relocate to a new town.

I used to live in quite a rough area. It wasn’t seen as a manly thing to do. I lost contact with my partner at the time because it wasn’t a socially admired job, and her friends would take the mick. I lost contact with my dad who would have nothing to do with me and questioned my sexuality. It’s one of the biggest reasons I moved away.

When it comes to nursery work, men may also have to confront suspicion from children’s parents about their motives, working hard to establish trust and demonstrate that they are not dangerous to children. Sometimes we get a sharp reminder about society’s strong prejudices against men doing what’s seen as “women’s work”.

For example, Andrea Leadsom, a short lived contender for PM, said it would be “cautious and very sensible” not to make men nannies because the “odds” mean they could be paedophiles.

And it’s not as if these disincentives are compensated for by a good salary either. Starter salaries for nursery workers are £10,000 to £14,000. So given these economic and emotional obstacles, why would any man choose a career caring for young children?

Everyone as equal

A good place to find the answer is a rather unusual English nursery called Oaktrees. It employs five men who work with the three- to four-year-olds, and the two- to three-year-olds. The men I spoke to at this nursery expressed a tremendous enthusiasm for their work and described their pleasure in “making a difference” to children’s lives and witnessing their development.

Breaking down gender norms from a young age. Shutterstock

It was clear their presence was especially helpful in engaging more fathers to come into the nursery and talk with staff. And parents were appreciative of the gender balanced workforce – pointing out that this represents wider society. They also liked how it helps children to understand that “both genders can be carers” and that “everyone is equal in terms of the jobs they can grow up and do”.

The nursery’s management also gave strong support to the male practitioners – and occasionally they had to intervene and explain to suspicious parents the men’s rights and abilities to take on intimate care jobs such as nappy changing.

Changing norms

The men thought they had particular value in helping children engage in outdoor activities and take risks in adventurous play on climbing frames and balancing beams – as they felt their female colleagues were more cautious. However, most of the female staff I spoke to insisted that men did not bring any extra special contribution to the job – but they did very much appreciate the high morale of the gender balanced staff team.

In this way, the men’s presence created a unique opportunity to challenge children’s gender stereotypical ideas. And occasionally the men made a deliberate choice to wear pink, put on a Tutu, or let children plait their hair.

Because childcare is not just a woman’s job. Shutterstock

However, they made an interesting contrast with the Swedish male preschool teachers that I interviewed in an earlier study. The Swedish men were much more sensitive to gender issues, and had received training on this. They were more conscious about the need to counteract young children’s gender stereotypes because it is clearly stated in their early years’ national curriculum.

What all this research shows is that the gender gap does matter. We need to recruit, train and retain more men to care for and educate our youngest children. Because this is one easy way to break down gender stereotypes and work towards a more gender equal society.

The Conversation

Jo Warin, Senior lecturer in Education, Lancaster University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, International Education

University transformation: the wrong research questions are being asked

This article was written by Anné H. Verhoef

“Transformation” is a word regularly in global higher education research. It normally implies deep change in knowledge and curriculum. It often entails questions about inclusion, identity, diversity, power, intellectual traditions and intellectual justice.

In South Africa, the word means something quite different in higher education. Its definition is rooted in the country’s apartheid history. The transition to democracy in 1994 gave impetus to transform the higher education system into one that was open, relevant and non-discriminatory.

The problem is that transformation is often loosely defined. There’s no clear consensus about its scope and aims. This lack of clarity means that research in South Africa about a wide variety of themes under the umbrella term of “transformation” may not actually be asking the right questions.

And asking the wrong questions means getting the wrong and irrelevant answers. It also sets back policy changes. Eventually this may discourage much needed transformation in higher education.

To understand what questions are and are not being asked, two of my colleagues and I analysed 1050 articles published in the South African Journal of Higher Education between 2005 and 2015.

We found four main patterns in how authors engaged with issues of transformation. We also identified a few shortcomings in their engagements. If these are addressed, it could help ensure that this crucial topic is properly understood. This can then be translated into solid, realistic policy and changes.

Research trends in South Africa

Only 30 of the 1050 articles we examined used the words “transformation”, “transformative” or “transforming” in their titles. We then analysed the 30 in more depth. Four quite distinct approaches to understanding transformation emerged.

These were transformation through curriculum; transformation through structures; transformation through redressing equity; and transformation through access.

1. Transformation through curriculum

Twelve articles positioned transformation in the higher education curriculum. They suggested that transformation takes place through what is taught and how it is taught, how results are measured and, for instance, how technology is integrated into teaching.

The articles in this pattern also presented a curriculum as something that’s flexible and constantly evolving. The authors explored the ways that professional development and student feedback could be used to test, critique and apply curricular reforms.

Some of the articles in this pattern presented teacher education as a space in which to start transforming the curriculum.

2. Transformation through structures

Nine articles related transformation to structures in higher education. There were three key aspects in these articles: ideas, practices and the role of structure in nation building; broader national trends such as higher education policy evaluation and reform; and the structures within institutions that influence transformation.

These structures include institutional culture underpinned by hegemonic forces that shape institutional transformation. That is: university education with whom, by whom and for whom. The research in this pattern explored how an institution’s leaders can emerge as sceptics or advocates for transformation. It also looked at transformation emanating from the institutional mergers of the mid 2000s.

3. Transformation through redressing equity

Six of the articles viewed transformation as redressing equity in higher education. In a post-apartheid South African context the expectation – as outlined in the Education White Paper of 1997 – is that

the higher education system must be transformed to redress past inequalities, to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs … to overcome the fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency which are the legacy of the past.

These articles viewed equity redress as being embedded in race, gender and class. They took the view that once universities open up access across class, race and gender – for students and staff – they’re on the road to transformation. These researchers referred specifically to the inclusion and exclusion of academic staff within institutions, including through recruitment policies.

So transformation was viewed as occurring through employment equity, the reconfiguration of power structures and alternative ways of conceptualising an institution’s staff diversity profiles.

4. Transformation through access

Three of the articles argued that access is a prerequisite for successful transformation in higher education. These articles contended that access was shaped by contextual and personal forces. In these arguments, specific reference was made to the access of black women academics. The articles also discussed the access to tertiary education of underprepared students.

These students struggled with language barriers or literacy challenges. They often battled to read and write in the language of instruction.

Shortcomings in research

These national research trends give close attention to the structural and ideological dimensions that shape transformation. This focus echoes the issues articulated in national policy.

The research trends we uncovered address some crucial aspects of transformation. But they fall short in three critical ways: internationalisation, interdisciplinary contributions and embracing transformation’s inherent complexity.

In higher education, internationalisation refers to universities crossing borders to attain certain academic, economic, political and cultural aims. It is the process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the core activities of higher education – teaching, learning, research and community engagement.

Internationalisation is necessary to broaden the discourse around transformation.

It’s also crucial that research in higher education should look beyond the education discipline alone. It needs to include input from other disciplines. The value of interdisciplinary research and education is that it increases competitiveness: knowledge creation and innovation frequently occur at the interface of disciplines. It also helps to ensure better educational programmes, which then improves students’ ability to work in a problem-oriented way.

Finally, embracing the complexity of transformation – understanding it as as a fluid open-ended construct rather than a static notion that is only focused on demographic changes – would help to bring about profound changes in the higher education domain.

If these approaches are given more attention in future research, South Africa’s policies can be greatly improved. This could make transformation in higher education tangible rather than just a pipe dream.

The Conversation

Anné H. Verhoef, Associate Professor in Philosophy, North-West University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

Expansion is no longer the answer to improving the Australian education system

This article was written by Dean Ashenden, University of Melbourne

For 50 years, Australia’s policymakers have been persuaded that growth at every level of the education system would be a good thing in itself – and would drive economic growth and social progress.

That faith is now under unprecedented pressure.

While massive expansion has brought the benefits of education to millions, it has also created new problems, and left old ones unresolved.

Human capital theory

Belief in the power of education to lift lives and societies is hardly new. But “human capital theory” gave it a new form.

Developed by a small group of US economists in the late 1950s, human capital theory arrived in Australia via the OECD in 1964, when L. H. Martin became the first in a long line of Australian policymakers to argue that education was not a necessary expense but an investment.

Investment in education would make individuals and economies more productive, triggering a virtuous circle of economic growth, more equal opportunity, higher levels of health and civic-mindedness, and cultural enrichment. The economic rain would follow the educational plough.

It followed (as one Australian human capital theorist argued) that,

“education spending should be expanded up to the point where the rate of return to additional spending is equal to the general rate of return on capital”.

Anything less will reduce the rate of economic growth and result in “a culturally impoverished and less cohesive society”.

In the meantime, education pays for itself (as another theorist put it) “many times over”.

Promise and performance

Governments have certainly done as advised.

In just two generations they have tripled the proportion of students completing 12 years of schooling, expanded numbers in vocational education and training (VET) from a few tens of thousands to around 1.5 million, and multiplied higher education numbers by thirteen.

But 50 years on it is clear the benefits of vastly expanded access to education are heavily offset in ways scarcely anticipated by the human capital argument:

  • Despite claims that education pays for itself, the chronic problem of funding it has recently become acute, pushing minister Pyne from his portfolio, and his government toward a near-death electoral experience.
  • Even the OECD, the leading apostle of human capital theory, concedes that “over-education” is relatively pronounced in Australia. Employment and salary returns to degree and diploma programs have fallen steadily, while at the lowest qualification levels returns are negligible or even negative. On the other side of the transaction, employers continue to complain about the employability and “job readiness” of graduates
  • Despite more years of schooling by many more people, a persistently large minority of students is “disengaged”, and an even larger proportion of adults lacks the skills “to meet the demands of everyday life and work”.
  • Research dominates the universities and they dominate the system as a whole. The universities have been allowed to pursue their own interests at the expense of teaching, and to undertake increasing amounts of educational work for which neither they nor their students are well equipped. Their dominance extends to the purposes and curriculum of schooling, and contributes to the perception of VET – under-funded and beset by scandal – as an educational last resort.
  • There have been few or no gains in the social distribution of opportunity in and through education. It seems likely that structural inequality – the distance between the best and worst educated, and the distribution of the population across that spectrum – has increased.
  • Growth has been in time served as well as numbers enrolled, causing costs for young people to rise as returns fall. They spend a steadily increasing proportion of their lives in a limbo between childhood and fully adult circumstances and responsibilities in pursuit of employment which may or may not materialise.

Growth still the solution?

There are those who argue or assume that growth should still be the first objective of policy.

The most recent substantial review of higher education, for example, relied on human capital theory to argue for a much-expanded, demand-driven system.

Deloitte Access Economics prosecutes the same case, claiming not just a long list of social, health and other benefits for expansion, but an 8.5% increase in GDP “because of the impact that a university education has had on the productivity”.

Australia’s most successful federal minister of education, John Dawkins, recently called for a comprehensive rethink, but with funding for further growth as the central question, a view apparently shared by the Grattan Institute.

The guns of policy are pointing in the wrong direction. We need a re-orientation for the next 50 years as substantial as that introduced by Martin 50 years ago.

A different orientation for public policy

The first question for policy should not be the size of the system or its funding but its disposition, character, and consequences:

  • Policy has concentrated on the supply of skills and knowledge; it should now concentrate on their use and development in the workplace.
  • The effort to load up individuals with economically useful skills and knowledge via front-end, formal education should give way to expanding career and training paths and work-based learning across the broadest possible range of industries and occupations, including most of the professions.
  • The focus on the social distribution of education should be widened to tackle structural inequality. Policy must be directed less toward opportunity to get the best, and more toward providing the highest possible proportion of the population with the best possible educational experience and attainment.
  • The priority currently given to the top half of the system and to those who do well at school and go on to higher education should be given to those for whom education is a bad experience with bad consequences.
  • Policy should above all stop equating human capital with the consumption of formal education. That conflation has allowed occupational groups, including particularly the professions and those aspiring to professional status, to combine with education providers to use credentials to drive up amounts of education consumed. Educational provision should be seen within the larger frame of learning and its recognition, irrespective of where, when or how undertaken, but particularly learning and its use in workplaces.

It is possible to detect the beginnings of such a re-orientation in some of the areas discussed; in others, it is not.

Learning the lessons of experience

Although human capital theory has gone largely unchallenged in policy debates, among economists it has been as much criticised and rejected as accepted.

Even those who work within the human capital framework often distance themselves from the growth argument appealed to by governments and others.

The rise of human capital theory from one among several accounts of the education-economy relationship to conventional wisdom owes as much to its political usefulness to governments and to the education industry as to its merits.

There is much more to the complex interaction of education and learning (on the one hand) and economic activity (on the other) than human capital theory comprehends, including particularly competition for economic advantage through education by occupational groups and by families and individuals.

There is also much more to education than its contribution to economic activity.

Martin depended upon a theory. Now we have experience. If the lessons of the past 50 years are to be learned, policymakers will need a much broader course of instruction than can be provided by human capital theory.

The Conversation

Dean Ashenden, Honorary Senior Fellow, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

Prospective higher education students need better information about admissions process: Shergold report

This article was written by Michelle Grattan

More students than ever before have the opportunity for higher education but their choices are being undermined by a confusing admissions system in much need of reform.

This is the conclusion of a report to Education Minister Simon Birmingham, which points to “a paradoxical situation”.

“Entry into universities has become more equitable. Yet there is evidence that families with less experience of higher education, which are economically disadvantaged or live in regional Australia, are less able to understand how admissions processes operate.”

The report, “Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions” is from the Higher Education Standards Panel, chaired by Peter Shergold, a one-time head of the Prime Minister’s department, and will be released by Birmingham on Wednesday.

It says the increasing diversity of admissions criteria for higher education is not well enough understood. Media focus is on the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) but in 2014 more than half the students admitted to higher education courses were admitted on other criteria. These included previous study and mature age provisions.

“Diversity is good. Varied entry standards and pathways are giving greater numbers of students the opportunity to benefit from higher education than ever before.

“More students from disadvantaged families, who in previous times would not have been able to gain entry to higher education, are now able to do so.

“However, choice is being undermined by information about the system’s operation that is confusing, ambiguous, misunderstood and unevenly distributed.”

Problems include: no common language to describe entry requirements; the ATAR calculation differing in each jurisdiction; information not being provided in a readily accessible way that facilitates comparisons; the ATAR focus leading many prospective students to assume that is the only path; and the danger that some higher education providers might make exaggerated claims about ATAR requirements, in an effort to boost their prestige.

There is consensus that the autonomy of higher education providers to set their own admission criteria should be upheld, but the panel says the emphasis should be on a student-centred approach.

The panel has produced a detailed set of recommendations to:

  • achieve more transparency by using common language and publishing consistent information about admissions processes;
  • widen the accessibility of information to prospective students;
  • improve the comparability of information from providers about admission processes and entry requirements;
  • make providers more accountable for the information they give;
  • ensure providers are subject to common reporting requirements, and
  • give students, parents, teachers and career advisers the knowledge and capacity they need to navigate admissions policies and processes.

Releasing the report at a higher education summit in Melbourne, Birmingham will support the recommendations’ intent and promise an official response within weeks. The government will get input from the sector and states and territories.

“Admission policies should not only empower students to make wise, well-informed choices but should also create levels of transparency and accountability that, coupled with optimal financial incentives, help to ensure that higher education providers make enrolment decisions that are genuinely in the best interests of students and the nation,” Birmingham will say.

“That shift towards greater transparency is why the Turnbull government has been such a strong advocate of the QILT [Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching] website – giving students better information about institutions and course quality, as well as graduate employment outcomes.”

The site has received about 490,000 visits. Enhancements to QILT would be part of the government’s response to the report and broad higher education reform, including better information for postgraduate students and greater use of universal data sources, Birmingham will say.

“We also require better understanding of whether students are moving between sectors or institutions within sectors or moving in to work or from a bachelor course of study to a diploma or advanced diploma in the same or another institution. Those students are currently being counted as non-completions.”

The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share