development report 2012 - UMAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

198 Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development Capacities of the education system The number of children in preschool education is increasing, while it is declining in elementary (Isced 1,2) and upper secondary education. This trend is typical for the whole period of the implementation of SDS, including 2011. The number of class units in kindergartens is therefore increasing. Since 2005, it has grown by 40.7% and the number of enrolled children by 42.2%. Meanwhile, the number of class units in elementary and upper secondary schools is declining. In 2005/2006–2009/2010, the number of pupils enrolled in elementary education dropped by 4.6% and the number of class units by 3.8%. The number of pupils attending upper secondary schools declined by 16.0% in the same period and the number of class units by 12.1%. The ratio of children to teachers (i.e. educators and assistant educators) in preschool education is very favourable. In the first age period (children aged 1–2), it totalled 6.3 in 2011/2012. Due to an increase in the number of enrolled children, it has deteriorated by 0.5 since 2005. In the second age period (children aged 3 up to entering primary school), the ratio was 9.3 in 2011/2012, which is roughly the same as in all previous years (9.4) and one of the most favourable ratios in the EU. Although the average ratio in the EU improved in 2005–2009, the ratio in Slovenia was still much lower than the EU average. 1 The average number of children per class unit also remained at approximately the same level as in the preceding year. In the first age period, it was 12.5, in the second age period, 20.4. The number of children in class units is prescribed by the Kindergarten Act and should not exceed 12 children in the first and 22 children in the second age period. Exceptionally, it can be by (at most) two children higher, if so decided by the local community. In the period of the implementation of SDS, the average number of children per class unit increased somewhat (in younger children by 0.4 and older by 0.8), meaning that local communities did, to a certain extent, take advantage of the possibility of increasing the number of children to mitigate the lack of capacities. The capacities of the education system at the elementary (primary and lower secondary) school level in Slovenia are also better, in general, than the EU average. The pupil/teacher ratio at Isced level 1, which covers the first six grades of elementary school 1 Internationally comparable data are available only for the second age period. in Slovenia, totalled 16.7 in 2009, having deteriorated significantly relative to the preceding year. At Isced level 2, which covers grades 7–9 in Slovenia, the ratio was much more favourable (7.9) and it improved in comparison with the previous year. A deterioration at the first level and improvement at the second is typical for the whole period of SDS’s implementation, which otherwise coincided with the time of the introduction of the nine-year elementary school. 2 At Isced level 1, the 2009 ratio was much worse than in the EU as a whole (12.5) and at Isced level 2 much more favourable than in the EU (EU 11.6). We estimate that the gaps can be explained by differences in educational programmes allocated to both Isced levels (owing to differences in education systems), as well as shorter school days in Slovenia. The size of classes (i.e. the average number of pupils per unit) is another indicator of the capacity of the education system. Slovenia has 18.5 children per unit at Isced level 1, which is below the average of the EU countries (21 countries) that are OECD Member States (19.8). In both Slovenia and the EU-21, the ratios remained roughly unchanged relative to those in 2008, while relative to 2005, the ratio in Slovenia increased. The average number of pupils per class unit at Isced level 2 is also among the lowest in the EU (2009: 19.8; EU-21: 21.9). It has dropped further relative to 2008 and 2005 and is therefore much lower than the norm (28 children per unit). Looking at systemic reasons (the requirements are lower in classes that include Roma pupils, children with special needs, in combined-grade classes, 3 combined-grade classes in areas with special development problems), the low number is primarily impacted by subsidiary elementary schools with a large share of combined-grade classes. Specifically, in 2010/2011 around 42% of elementary schools in Slovenia were subsidiary schools, but they accounted for less than 10% of all pupils. On the other hand, the pupil/teacher ratio in upper secondary schools was relatively less favourable. It deteriorated in 2009, totalling 14.3, which is worse than on average in the EU (11.2). Until 2005 the ratio had been fairly similar to the EU average; in 2005– 2009 it improved somewhat (by 0.2), but less than in the EU (by 2.3). Amid a decline in the number of pupils of secondary-school age and hence in the number of class units in the period of the implementation of SDS, the average number of pupils per unit also dropped. In 2009/2010, it averaged 24.3. New Rules on Norms and Standards for the Implementation of Educational Programmes and a Schooling Programme in Secondary Education adopted in 2010 lowered the 2 In Slovenia, Isced level 1 covered the lower level of primary school, i.e. grades 1–4, and Isced level 2 the upper level, grades 5–8. 3 According to the Primary School Act from 1996, pupils from two or more grades can be placed in a combined-grade class unit.
Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development 199 norms in upper secondary vocational and technical schools and in general upper secondary schools, which would mean a further decline in the average number of pupils per unit. Table: Pupil-teacher ratio, EU, 2000–2009 Isced 1 1 Isced 2 1 Isced 3 1 2000 2005 2008 2009 2000 2005 2008 2009 2000 2005 2008 2009 EU 16.1 14.8 12.3 12.5 14.3 13.7 11.2 11.6 13.6 13.5 10.9 11.2 Austria N/A 14.1 12.9 12.6 N/A 10.6 9.9 9.6 N/A 11.3 10.5 10.2 Belgium N/A 12.8 12.6 12.5 N/A 9.4 8.1 8.1 N/A 9.9 10.8 10.2 Bulgaria 16.8 16.3 16.1 17.4 12.1 12.6 12.0 12.5 11.6 11.9 11.5 12.0 Cyprus 18.1 17.9 15.0 14.5 N/A 11.9 10.8 10.2 12.7 11.5 10.6 10.2 Czech Rep. 21.0 17.5 18.1 18.4 15.6 13.5 11.8 11.5 13.4 12.8 14.0 12.2 Denmark 10.7 11.9 10.1 9.9 10.6 N/A N/A N/A 12.1 N/A N/A N/A Estonia 14.9 N/A 16.4 16.2 11.2 N/A 16.0 15.7 10.1 N/A 12.4 16.8 Finland 16.9 15.9 14.4 13.6 10.7 10.0 10.6 10.1 17.0 18.0 15.9 16.6 France 19.5 19.4 19.9 19.7 14.7 14.2 14.6 14.9 10.4 10.3 9.4 9.6 Germany 19.8 18.8 18.0 17.4 15.7 15.5 15.0 15.1 13.9 14.0 14.0 13.9 Greece 13.4 11.1 N/A N/A 10.8 7.9 N/A N/A 10.5 8.8 N/A N/A Hungary 10.9 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.9 10.4 10.9 10.8 9.9 12.2 12.3 12.8 Ireland 21.5 17.9 17.8 15.9 15.8 N/A N/A N/A 15.8 15.6 12.9 12.6 Italy 11.0 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.4 10.5 9.7 10.0 10.5 12.0 11.8 11.8 Latvia 18.0 12.2 12.8 11.4 12.7 11.2 9.2 8.7 13.3 12.1 11.9 11.5 Lithuania 16.7 11.3 9.7 9.7 11.7 8.8 7.7 7.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Luxembourg N/A N/A 12.1 11.6 N/A N/A 9.0 18.4 N/A 9.0 N/A 9.2 Malta 19.1 12.1 10.6 9.4 9.0 8.4 7.1 6.5 16.2 17.4 15.3 15.8 Netherlands 16.8 15.9 15.8 15.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.1 16.2 15.8 16.1 Poland 12.7 11.7 10.5 10.2 11.5 12.7 12.9 12.9 16.9 12.9 12.2 12.0 Portugal 12.4 10.8 11.3 11.3 10.4 8.2 8.1 7.6 8.5 N/A 7.3 7.7 Romania N/A 17.4 16.3 16.4 15.0 12.4 12.5 12.2 12.8 16.0 14.8 14.4 Slovakia 18.3 18.9 18.6 17.7 13.5 14.1 14.5 14.0 12.8 14.3 15.1 15.1 Slovenia 13.4 15.0 15.8 16.7 13.8 11.1 8.9 7.9 13.1 14.5 13.5 14.3 Spain 14.9 14.3 13.1 13.3 13.7 12.5 10.3 10.1 9.7 8.1 8.7 9.3 Sweden 12.8 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.8 12.0 11.4 11.3 15.2 14.0 14.7 13.2 UK 21.2 20.7 20.2 19.9 17.6 17.0 15.0 16.1 19.3 N/A 12.4 12.3 Source: Eurostat Portal Page – Population and Social Conditions, 2012. Note: 1 According to the International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 1997, Isced 1 comprises primary education or the first stage of basic education, Isced 2 lower secondary or second stage of basic education and Isced 3 (upper) secondary education. Figure: Ratio between the number of children enrolled in organised forms of early childhood education and the number of teaching staff, 2009 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Poland Romania Cyprus U. Kingdom Belgium Italy Portugal Austria Czech R. Source: Eurostat Portal Page – Population and social conditions, 2012. Germany Luxembourg Slovakia Spain Malta Bulgaria EU-27 Finland Hungary Latvia Ireland Slovenia Lithuania Sweden Estonia
Page 1:
development report 2012
Page 5 and 6:
Development Report 2012 Contents 3
Page 7:
Development Report 2012 Contents 5
Page 10 and 11:
8 Development Report 2012 Main find
Page 12 and 13:
10 Development Report 2012 Summary
Page 15:
Part I Development by the prioritie
Page 18 and 19:
16 Development Report 2012 Developm
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 93:
Part II Indicators of Slovenia’s
Page 96 and 97:
94 Development Report 2012 Indicato
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
100 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 133 and 134:
THE SECOND PRIORITY Efficient use o
Page 135 and 136:
Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 157: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 160 and 161: 158 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 171 and 172: THE FOURTH PRIORITY: A modern welfa
Page 236 and 237: 234 Development Report 2012 Bibliog
Page 247 and 248: Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 249 and 250: Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 251:
development report 2012
show all

development report 2012 - UMAR

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?