Transcript Disleksija izglītības kontekstā Latvijā un pasaulē

THE BALTIC SEA CONFERENCE AND THE FIRST NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF LATVIAN READING ASSOCIATION
Riga, July 2008
Using the results of
International Reading Tests to
Inform Good Practice and Policy
Thomas Schmit and Eva Birzniece,
Pro Futuro, Latvia
31 July 2008
[email protected]
Using PIRLS/PISA to promote
dialogue
• Our work tells us that people are
interested
• Confused by multiple, confusing
sources of information
• Structure info using IRA
suggestions
Latvian literacy level
• According to the CIA factbook
Literacy:
• definition: age 15 and over can read and
write
total population: 99.7%
male: 99.8%
female: 99.7% (2000 census)
What kinds of tests?
• Norm referenced
– Assumes distribution of the trait tested
(across a population). Education or training
shouldn’t much change it.
• Criterion referenced
– We can define competency.
– 10 means someone can
– 5 means that they cannot
What do these sets of numbers
have in common?
• 7, 7, 7, 7, 7
• 10, 10, 10, 5
• 5, 5, 5, 10,10
What about PIRLS and OECD?
• Criterion referenced
• Children have been instructed in the task
(reading) and should be (theoretically)
competent in meeting criteria.
Specific Topics addressed by
PISA/PIRLS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessments
School structure
School management
Resources
Teacher education
Professional development
Gender
Socioeconomic status (SES)
Home and community
Engagement
Underachievement
Considering the Results
Can:
• Show ranges of
competencies/performance (criterion
referenced),
• Demonstrate or suggest links between
social, policy and school factors and
performance (use of non-test data from
students, teachers and administrators),
• Suggest internationally/nationally
successful practices and policies that can
be emulated- Best Practices models.
Cannot:
• Give league tables- too much is too
different for direct comparison,
• Point to “the right” or “best” solution(s).
But, they talk about averages
What does the average tell us?
• Not much
• Average changed by mix of schools,
children etc.
• Compared to other countries- changes
based on countries involved (weaker,
stronger etc.)
• OECD, 2006 – 15 year olds
– 6% under any reading comprehension level
– 15% the first comprehension level
• PIRLS, 2006 – 4th graders
–
–
–
–
Latvia above the European average
excluded - 90 special schools (?)
excluded - 4,3%
excluded – 0.5% ss with physical and mental
problems
– The number of poor readers increased
compared to 2001
10
Islande
Norvēģija
Austrija
Somija
Serbija
Taizeme
Vācija
Polija
Itālija
Austrālija
Urugvaja
Spānija
Latvija
Francija
Grieķija
Beļģija
Zviedrija
Portugāle
Šveice
Brazilijaija
OECD vid.
Turcija
Luksemburga
Slovākija
ASV
Honkonga
Kanāda
Čehija
Ungārija
Īrija
Krievija
Jaunzēlande
Dānija
Tunisija
Indonēzija
Japāna
Meksika
Koreja
Nīderlande
Lihtenšteina
Makao (Ķīna)
Girls and boys performance gap
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Literacy skills
for the world of tomorrow
21st World Congress on Reading, 7-10 August 2006
Andreas Schleicher
Head, Indicators and Analysis Division
OECD Directorate for Education
• Sympathy doesn’t raise standards –
aspiration does
– PISA suggests that students and schools perform better
in a climate characterised by high expectations and the
readiness to invest effort, the enjoyment of learning, a
strong disciplinary climate, and good teacher-student
relations
 Among these aspects, students’ perception of
teacher-student relations and classroom disciplinary
climate display the strongest relationships
Other messages
• Equity matters
• Resources (and their use) matters
• Policy matters
A specific finding to consider
• How well do children in different kinds of
schools score?
What are the possible explanations for this
disparity?
•Based on Latvian explanations?
•Based on International data?
What is needed to help?
What is needed to help?
• lack of information about struggling readers – 27%
• national education system (too intense curriculum,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
no time to learn step by step) – 16%?
too many students per class – 14%
lack of teacher time – 11%
lack of methodological materials and skills of
teachers – 10%
denial of the system to acknowledge and identify
reading difficulties – 8%
no cooperation btw teachers and parents – 7%
lack of national financing – 4%
lack of specialists – 3% (PIRLS – 71% of teachers
report no access to remedial reading specialists)
Conclusions
• Latvian education stakeholders want this
dialogue
• Asking the questions in the rich context of
international studies is valuable
• Carefully framed questions facilitates
dialogue
• Supplementary/original data adds to
understanding.
[email protected]