1. Key Findings of the OECD Policy Review of Migrant Education and Implications for Language Education Policy for Immigrant Children Miho Taguma Project Manager of Policy Review of Migrant Education Intergovernmental Policy Forum 2-4 November 2010 1

2. Stock of foreign-born, as percentage in population Brief Background 2

3. Project’s overarching question What policies will promote successful education outcomes of first and second generation immigrant students? Focus: –Education outcomes (Student Performance, Participation, Access) vs labour market outcomes –Education policies vs immigration, housing, social and labour market policies Scope: Pre-school, primary and secondary education Review countries (6 countries): Austria, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden Background reports (above + 6 countries): Finland, Hungary, Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom Working methods: Mix of quantitative and qualitative –Desk-based research: i) statistical analysis for 6 countries +: national statistics, PISA, PARLS and ii) literature reviews, and country background reports to establish facts and explore factors that are linked to education outcomes, and consider policy implications –Fact-finding and policy review visits to consolidate the facts and suggest effective policy options for the countries concerned 3

4. PISA shows: At age 15, marked performance differences in reading are observed. 400 450 500 550 600 Score Native students- Firstgeneration immigrant studentsOECD average performance in reading 38 pts Roughly equivalent to one year of schooling (science - proxy) 4 Secondgeneration immigrant students 1 How do immigrant students perform?

5. Student-level factors Accounting for students' socio-economic background Accounting for students' socio-economic background and language spoken at home Performance difference in reading - 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 0 Score point difference “SES” and “speaking a different language at home” largely explain the performance gap between the two groups in many countries. But they are not the only reasons. 2 What can explain the gap/ non-gap? 38 pts Roughly equivalent to one year of schooling (science - proxy) Other factors: availability of educational resources at home, reading at home at a young age, and participating in ECEC, etc. 5

6. School-level factors A few examples….. More hours per week for language learning in regular class Australia ++ Austria - - - Belgium ++ Flemish Com. ++++ Canada + Denmark ~~ Germany ~~ Greece ++ Ireland ~~ Italy +++ Luxembourg +++++ Netherlands ~~ New Zealand ++++ Norway +++ Portugal ++++ Spain +++ Sweden ~~ Switzerland ++ United Kingdom ~~ Relationship with performance is not statistically significant - / +Less than 20 score point change in reading performance - - / ++Between 21 and 40 score point change in reading performance - - - / +++Between 41 and 60 score point change in reading performance - - - - / ++++Between 61 and 80 score point change in reading performance - - - - - / +++++More than 80 score point change in reading performance Source: OECD PISA 2006 database 6

7. Explicit policy goals Funding Explicit policy goals Funding Qualifications, qualifications framework Explicit policy goals Funding Qualifications, qualifications framework Curricula, guidelines, pedagogy Explicit policy goals Funding Qualifications, qualifications framework Curricula, guidelines, pedagogy Capacity building (training and support) Explicit policy goals Funding Qualifications, qualifications framework Curricula, guidelines, pedagogy Capacity building (training and support) Awareness-raising, Communication, dissemination Explicit policy goals Funding Qualifications, qualifications framework Curricula, guidelines, pedagogy Capacity building Awareness-raising, Communication, dissemination Monitoring, research, evaluation, feedback Policy target and policy alignment Government Steering Tools Ministry of Education Other ministries Regional governments Students (Primary Target) Parents Teachers/ school masters Teacher education univ & colleges Communities