Improving Equity & Quality of Education in Thailand Using the results from International and...
-
Upload
gwendolyn-rodgers -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
4
Transcript of Improving Equity & Quality of Education in Thailand Using the results from International and...
Improving Equity & Quality of Education in Thailand
Using the results from International and
National Assessments
[PISA , TIMSS, & National Test]
SummaryIn conclusionThe youth of Thailand are not been well prepared to meet the challenges in later life and to compete in the international & regional community.
The Impact of school factors gives information to the system level where to attack the weakness.
Findings From PISA :
• The following slides summarize schools factors that associated with science performance
• Only some selected factors, and their gross effect on performance are presented.
School factors : PISA looked at
• Admitting, selecting and grouping
• School management and funding
• Parental pressure and choice
• Accountability policy
• School autonomy
• School resources
School management
At School level• Ability grouping for all subjects associates with
negative effect (-10 score points)
• Student learning time for regular lessons in school (+ 14 score points/ 1 additional hour)
• Student learning time for-out-of-school lessons, e.g. coaching schools(-13 score points/ 1 additional hour)
• Index of school activity to promote learning (+7 score points/ 1 S.D. of the index)
Figure 2.2.a Proportion of students taking out-of-school-time lessons with non-school teachers, by type of out-of-school-time lessons
One to one lessons Small group lessons Large group lessonsPercentage
Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students taking out-of-school-time one to one lessons.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Norw
ayDe
nmar
kFi
nland
Neth
erlan
dsSw
eden
Japa
nCh
ileTu
rkey
Lithu
ania
Icela
ndCz
ech
Cana
daAu
stra
liaAu
stria Ne
wUn
ited
Hong
Kon
g-Un
ited
Belgi
um Isra
elM
acao
-M
exico
OEC
DPo
land
Switz
erlan
dBr
azil
Ger
man
yTh
ailan
dIre
land
Serb
iaM
onte
negr
oFr
ance
Luxe
mbo
urg
Colom
biaIn
done
siaSl
ovak
Croa
tiaPo
rtuga
lLa
tvia
Chine
seBu
lgaria
Russ
ianEs
tonia
Spain
Urug
uay
Azer
baija
nTu
nisia
Arge
ntina
Kore
aLie
chte
nste
iHu
ngar
yKy
rgyz
stan
Rom
ania Ita
lyQ
atar
Slov
enia
Jord
anG
reec
e
Out of school time classes with non school teachers
Out of school time classes with school teachers
Figure 2.2.b Proportion of students taking out-of-school-time lessons with school teachers, by type of out-of-school-time lessons
One to one lessons Small group lessons Large group lessonsPercentage
Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students taking out-of-school-time large group lessons.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Bel
gium
Net
herla
nds
Den
mar
kA
ustr
alia
Uru
guay
New
Zea
land
Gre
ece
Spa
inIr
elan
dLu
xem
bour
gG
erm
any
Fra
nce
Liec
hten
stei
nA
rgen
tina
Can
ada
Slo
veni
aC
roati
aF
inla
ndT
urke
yC
zech
Icel
and
Sw
itzer
land
Ser
bia
Aus
tria
OE
CD
Hun
gary
Nor
way
Chi
leU
nite
dE
ston
iaLi
thua
nia
Col
ombi
aU
nite
dIs
rael
Bra
zil
Sw
eden
Mon
tene
gro
Rom
ania
Bul
garia
Mex
ico
Por
tuga
lS
lova
kIta
lyP
olan
dLa
tvia
Qat
arJa
pan
Tun
isia
Indo
nesi
aM
acao
-chi
naC
hine
seK
orea
Rus
sian
Tha
iland
Jord
anH
ong
Kon
g-A
zerb
aija
nK
yrgy
zsta
n
Effect of Resources and Funding
More public funding- negative effect (- 3 score points for additional 10% of public funding)
Lack of qualified teachers (-3.5 points for additional unit of index)
Availability of quality educational resources: (+ 3.9 score points for additional unit of index)
At System level
Schools have higher degree of autonomy in budgeting (+ 22.5 score points for one additional standard deviation).
Schools have higher degree of autonomy in educational content (+ 20 score points for one additional standard deviation).
Data say that: Education systems where:
Implication for policy
Improving equity/ Raising performance Target factors that have impact on learning quality. Use research results as the base for decision making. Target low performance: low performing schools / low- performing students within schools
Targeting disadvantage children / disadvantage schools – More assistant scheme is needed to gear towards this target.
Allocation of schools resources (with precaution that computers do not show positive enhancing on learning.)
Resource: Do we target the disadvantage?
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
PISA 2000 PISA 2006
Small schools Big schools
Data show that Big schools shortage decreased; small schools unchanged
Thailand: Top and Bottom performersFrom PISA 2000 to PISA 2006
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
PISA 2000 PISA 2006 PISA 2000 PISA 2006 PISA 2000 PISA 2006
Top group Bottom group
Read Science Math
From the Studies of Computer for Instruction
• Results did not support the positive impact of computer on learning.
• Students most frequent use of computers did not score higher than the least users.
Source: OECD (2005) Source: OECD (2005) Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell usAre students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us , Figure 4.6, , Figure 4.6, p.65.p.65.
ICT & Performance (OECD)
Mathematics performance
475
500
525
Bottom
quarter
Second
quarter
Third
quarter
Top
quarter
Reading performance
475
500
525
Bottom
quarter
Second
quarter
Third
quarter
Top
quarter
Index of ICT Internet/entertainment use
Index of ICT program/software use
Frequent use of computer and score (Thailand)
The moderate users scored higher
405
410
415
420
425
430
435
440
Bottomquarter
2nd quarter 3rd quarte Top quarter
math read
Implication for policy:
At system level : What is needed to rethink !Schools autonomy in budgeting & education content.
Standards for all students. [ All students need to masterneed to master reading and mathematics which are basics to any other learning.]
Quality time
Que sera, sera! What ever will be, will be.
The future’s not ours to see.Que sera, sera!
Will we see rainbow day after day?
Here was she said to me:
PISA 2006East Asian countries performed on top group. But Thailand, Indonesia were on lower end 0f
the scale.
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Read Math Science
HKG
Ch-T
JPN
KOR
THA
IND
Change in Reading performance from PISA 2000 to PISA 2006
350
400
450
500
550
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
KOR HKG JPN Ch_TP
Ma-C THA INDO
Change in Mathematics performance
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
KOR HKG JPN Ch_TP
Ma-C THA INDO
Change in Science performance
350
400
450
500
550
600
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
KOR HKG JPN Ch_TP Ma-C
THA INDO
By TIMSS results (Science & mathematics) the countries are separated: High and low performers
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Science Math
SNG
Ch_TP
JPN
KOR
HKG
THA
MAL
INDO
TIMSS Math from 1995 - 2007
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
1995 1999 2007
Ch_TP*
KOR
SNG
HKG
JPN
MAL*
THA
INDO
TIMSS
TIMSS Science from 1995 – 2007[Countries in Asia]
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
1995 1999 2007
SNG
Ch_TP
JPN
KOR
HKG
THA
MAL
INDO
TIMSS
Trend: Thailand compared to Hong Kong (in TIMSS 1995 the two performed equally well)
440
460
480
500
520
540
HKG
THA
1995
1999
2007
Sci - THA & HKG
Thailand: The National tests from 2000 to 2008 show no improvement but decline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2003 2006 2008
Thai Math Science
English Linear (Math) Linear (English)