In his latest Education Week blog, Robert Slavin, director of the Center for Research and Reform in Education, has been discussing a thought-provoking speech by Baroness Estelle Morris, former Secretary of State for Education, at the last IEE conference. She noted that everyone involved in education wants the best for children, and that it’s appropriate to argue about values and desired outcomes.
But when we want to improve children’s learning (on whatever outcomes we’ve agreed to be important), we should look to the evidence, not to the political process. You can read a summary of the speech by Estelle Morris in the last issue of Better: Evidence-based Education and find out more about next year’s conference on the IEE website.
Source: Shouldn’t government be accountable too? (2012), Education Week (Sputnik Blog)
This report from the Eurydice network summarises how policies and measures relating to citizenship education have evolved in recent years. Citizenship education has gained prominence in teaching across Europe, with 20 of the 31 countries (EU Member States, Iceland, Norway, Croatia, and Turkey) dedicating a separate compulsory subject to its teaching.
The report focusses in particular on curriculum aims and organisation; student and parent participation in schools; school culture and student participation in society; assessment and evaluation; and support for teachers and school heads.
Citizenship features on the curriculum in all countries, but the authors say that more needs to be done to improve teachers’ knowledge and skills for teaching it. In general, citizenship education is integrated into initial teacher training courses for secondary education in subjects such as history and geography, but only England and Slovakia offer training as a specialist teacher in citizenship education.
Source: Citizenship education in Europe (2012), Eurydice
A new study from the National Center for Postsecondary Research and MDRC examines a number of college readiness partnership programmes operating in Texas. These programmes, co-sponsored by a college and, usually, a high school, are designed to prepare high school students to start college ready to undertake college-level work. According to the authors, both the literature and their research findings generally support these programmes’ potential to improve college readiness for students in the “academic middle”.
The authors identify a number of implications for college readiness partnership programmes and the partnerships themselves. For example, they say that those seeking to implement college readiness partnership programmes should consider that many programmes, especially those that are intensive, can only serve limited numbers of students. As such, they say that institutions may want to match college-going students who are academically underprepared with more intensive programmes and direct those students who primarily need assistance with “college knowledge” to less intensive programmes.
Source: Preparing high school students for college (2012), MDRC
A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) looks at the educational achievement of immigrant children and how it can be improved, drawing on results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
The report shows that performance gaps between immigrant and non-immigrant pupils vary across countries, and it recognises that integrating immigrant pupil populations poses significant challenges to the quality and equity of schools in OECD countries. It suggests that by reinforcing language-learning policies, ensuring a more balanced social mix in schools, and focusing on content specific to immigrants, schools can improve the educational achievement of immigrant children. However, education policy alone is unlikely to fully address these challenges, and changes to social policy may also be necessary.
Source: PISA – Untapped skills: realising the potential of Immigrant students (2012), PISA
Performance-based pay is worth considering in some contexts, but making it work well can be a challenge, according to a recent PISA in focus review, which looks at the effects of performance-based pay for teachers on pupil performance. It shows that in countries with comparatively low teachers’ salaries in relation to national income, using performance-related pay results in better pupil performance, while in countries where teachers are relatively well paid, the opposite is true.
The report also highlights challenges to making a performance-based pay system work well, and the need to have valid measures of performance in place if the system is to be fair and accurate. It emphasises that pay can only play a part, and countries that have made teaching an attractive profession have done so by raising the status of teaching and offering real career prospects, and not through pay alone.
Source: Does performance-based pay improve teaching? (2012), PISA in focus, 12
The US President’s Office of Management and Budget has released new guidance to executive departments and agencies encouraging them to use rigorous programme evaluation and evidence-based decision making in their budget submissions for the 2014 financial year. The memo specifies that programmes demonstrating a commitment to developing and using evidence should be preferred for funding, and it suggests a number of approaches that agencies might use, including:
Low-cost evaluations using administrative data or new technology;
- Systematic measurement of costs and cost performance;
- Using comparative cost-effectiveness data to allocate resources;
- Infusing evidence into grant-making;
- Using evidence to inform the enforcement of criminal, environmental and workplace safety laws; and
- Strengthening agency evaluation capacity.
The memo is further support for the movement on both sides of the Atlantic to introduce more evidence-based policy and practice. In the latest Better: Evidence-based Education, Estelle Morris wrote an article about the levers available to politicians for bringing about change in education.
Source: Memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies (2012), Executive office of the president office of management and budget