Reaching the marginalized: EFA global monitoring report, 2010; 2010

REACHING THE MARGINALIZEDMeasuring marginalization in educationMigrant students in many countries face a farhigher risk of education marginalization thannative students do. Their participation in schoolis more likely to be disrupted by leaving early– and migrant students often lag in learningachievement. Research based on evidence fromPISA surveys shows that, in most OECD countries,first-generation immigrants typically lag anaverage of about 1.5 years behind their nativecounterparts (OECD, 2007b). In several countries,including Germany, the Netherlands andSwitzerland, the proportion of immigrant studentsfailing to reach level 2 in the 2006 PISAassessment was at least three times as highas the proportion of native students (Figure 3.20).Countries vary also in the degree to which theyare narrowing learning achievement gaps. Whilethe gap is narrowing in Sweden and Switzerland,it is widening in Germany and the Netherlands(OECD, 2007a). Education policy is just part of theexplanation for these trends. Patterns of migrantdisadvantage are closely associated in manycountries with home language, country of origin,neighbourhood effects and other kinds of socialdeprivation. But education systems can helpnarrow or widen the gap.Early tracking of students into different abilitystreams and types of school has been found inseveral cross-country studies to be associatedwith greater inequality in achievement withoutany discernible benefits for average performance(Hanushek and Wößmann, 2006). Being labelledas ‘low ability’ at an early age may lead studentsto internalize low expectations and lose motivation.Differences in tracking policies may help explainwhy students of Turkish origin tend to performbetter in Switzerland (where tracking is delayed)than in Germany (which tracks students early),two countries where many migrants arechannelled into vocational streams (Nusche, 2009;OECD, 2006b). They also go some way towardsexplaining the very large variation in performancebetween schools in Germany linked to socioeconomicstatus. In Finland, less than 5% ofoverall performance variation of students can betraced to inequalities between schools, comparedwith over 70% in Germany – twice the OECDaverage (OECD, 2006b).Racial and ethnic minority groups experiencesome of the most severe education disadvantage,which can be traced to deeply engrained and oftencenturies-old patterns of cultural discriminationFigure 3.19: Same country, different worlds of learning achievementTIMSS average mathematics scores in the United States and selected countries, grade 8, 2007Students below proficiency level 2 (%)403020100Average mathematics score650600550500450400350Source: Gonzales et al. (2008).Rep. of KoreaSingaporeUnited StatesMalaysiaThailandTurkeyTunisiaIran, Isl. Rep.EgyptFigure 3.20: Second-generation immigrants in rich countries performfar below native students in science% of students aged 15 scoring below proficiency level 2 on PISA mathematics scale,* secondgeneration immigrants and native students in Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, 2006Switzerland Netherlands GermanyTop 10% performersAsianWhiteand stigmatization. Low educational achievementreflects the durability of these patterns, interactingwith social and economic inequalities to perpetuatesocial exclusion.United States national averageHispanicHigh poverty schoolsAfrican-AmericanBottom 10% performersSecond-generationimmigrant studentsNative students* ’Level 2 on the PISA proficiency scale represents the baseline level of mathematics proficiency at whichstudents begin to demonstrate the kind of skills that enable them to actively use mathematics: for example,they are able to use basic algorithms, formulae and procedures, to make literal interpretations and to applydirect reasoning’ (OECD, 2007a, p. 107).Source: OECD (2007a).157