Date post: | 17-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | oecd-education |
View: | 1,750 times |
Download: | 2 times |
INTEGRITY OF EDUCATION SYSTEMS (INTES): A framework for assessment
Mihaylo Milovanovitch, Directorate for Education, OECD
Presentation outline
The task at hand
The conceptual framework
Implementation and outcomes
How to go for it?
EDUCATION CORRUPTION
Occurrence
Analysis and policy reaction?
Criminalise & punish
Prohibit & enforce
Teach & mobilise
Reactive/punitive:Focus on cases
Preventative: Focus on
opportunityPreventative:Focus on origin
Milovanovitch
?
Milovanovitch
Act
ive c
orru
ptio
n
Pass
ive c
orru
ptio
n
why?
why?
LIMITATIONS: The “vicious circle” – corruption occurrence and impact
Phase I: Causality links
Level 1: System
shortcomings
Level 3: Corruption occurrence
Phase II: Measuring
impactLevel 2: Preventive framework
How to go for it? INTES demand-focused approach
Lets assume: good education systems have no corruption
How to go for it? INTES demand-focused approach
But:What is a good system?
• Quality of outcomes• Equity of access and success• Teachers and professors• Management
• Prevention and detection
Link of demand and corruption: qualityMean reading score in PISA 2009 adjusted for country's socio-economic profile and the Global Corruption
Barometer (extent do you perceive the education system in this country to be affected by corruption)
Source: INTES Note: Excluding South Korea and Japan
1.52.02.53.03.54.0350
400
450
500
550
UK
f(x) = − 32.3864520104333 x + 564.313301709915R² = 0.217359784415101
Global Corruption Barometer/ Transparency International : To what extent do you perceive the the ed-ucation system in this country to be affected by corruption? (1- 5 strongest)
Mea
n re
adin
g sc
ore
in P
ISA
200
9 ad
just
ed fo
r cou
ntri
es' s
ocio
-ec
onom
ic p
rofil
e
OECD average
Link of staff policy and c.: teachersShare of all those in top quarter of PISA reading performance who want to become teachers and the Global
Corruption Barometer (extent do you perceive the education system in this country to be affected by corruption)
1.52.02.53.03.54.0-0.3
0.2
0.7
1.2
1.7
2.2
1.0282973374398
0.8310311962103650.8185890257558790.8144485206935520.747965853007871
0.897549353301566
1.14964349842233
1.0328222685323
1.22172458450248
1.39438153310105
0.474238114587566
0.8659188034188050.953139228093116
0.540419430005378
1.79353280059468
1.1933095197596
0.676928584213353
1.564796132828921.53509062776304
1.014452674105431.12960036395853
1.447416947998521.34046345811052
1.10806613053533
0.737347356532789
1.341449047712551.36523762047192
1.23497365900383
1.74801870539011
1.33881558983821
2.11023321897634
1.11881188118812
0.869971450817546
1.7588338548424
1.387772694118431.32263101767215
1.178016853039381.058685911416
1.44636564394117
1.60767565896266
1.01055881107514
f(x) = − 0.271070169185046 x + 1.91875719231091R² = 0.12032153596668
Global Corruption Barometer/ Transparency International : To what extent do you perceive the the ed-ucation system in this country to be affected by corruption? (1- 5 strongest)
Rati
o Sh
are
of a
ll th
at w
ant t
o be
com
e te
ache
rs/t
hose
in to
p qu
arte
r of
read
ing
perf
orm
ance
How to go for it? INTES demand-focused approach
Integrity:
The INTES assessments consider integrity in education to be the consistent application of such actions, values, methods and principles which lead to:
• Fair access to education; • Better quality of education;• Fair and professional treatment of staff, and sound
management;• Successful prevention and detection of
malpractice/corruption
Origins of corruption demand:
Corruption addresses a persisting need of actors and stakeholders in education for a specific education service, which the system is not or is not properly providing. It is caused by this need, by an opportunity situation, or by both.
Systems in which stakeholders feel that one or more of these “deliverables” is/are not satisfactory, have an integrity
problem, and are prone to corruption
How to go for it? Origins of corruption related demand
System failing to deliver intended outcomes (system
with integrity issues)
Demand for fairer access to education;
Demand for better quality of education;
Demand for fair and professional treatment of staff, including sound management;
Failure to ensure successful prevention and detection
Level 2: Preventive framework
Budget monitoring
Regulatory framework
Civil society and media
Accountability mechanisms
Level 3: Corruption incidence
Corruption incidence
Corruption incidence
Education corruption – hypothetical sequence of occurrence
Opportunity, spotted by
need or greed
Shortcoming 1 Shortcoming 2 Shortcoming 3
Level 1:
Education system shortcomings Sub-
dimensions
Key area 1: teachers
Sub-dimensions
Key area 2: assessment
Sub-dimensions
Key area 3: XYMilovanovitch
How to go for it?
Instances of corruption
Good grades and exam passes obtained through bribes Exam questions sold in advance Exam cheating countenanced or facilitated by education staff Removing the consequences of failing exams (re-admitting students under false names) School places (for schools perceived to be “better”) ‘auctioned’ out to the highest bidder. Private tutoring from class teacher outside school hours given to paying pupils Staff recruitment, promotion and postings influenced by factors not related to suitability, such as bribes or sexual
favours or political affiliation High absenteeism (i. e. due to low motivation), affecting de facto student-teacher ratios. Private tutoring, reducing teachers’ motivation in ordinary classes Inflated or adjusted student numbers (including numbers of special needs pupils) quoted to obtain better funding Sub-standard educational material purchased due to manufacturers’ bribes, instructors’ copyrights, etc. Embezzlement of funds intended for materials, school buildings, etc. Licences and authorisations for teaching obtained on false grounds via corrupt means Sale/purchase of diplomas/qualifications Special attention given in class to favoured pupils tied to influence or payments Private tutoring
Demand situations addressed
Instances of corruption
Demand related to equity (access) –
DA
Good grades and exam passes obtained through bribes Exam questions sold in advance Exam cheating countenanced or facilitated by education staff Removing the consequences of failing exams (re-admitting students under false names)
Demand related to quality (better quality
education) – DQ
School places (for schools perceived to be “better”) ‘auctioned’ out to the highest bidder. Private tutoring from class teacher outside school hours given to paying pupils
Demand related to staff (prof. recognition,
placement, fair treatment) –
DS
Staff recruitment, promotion and postings influenced by factors not related to suitability, such as bribes or sexual favours or political affiliation
High absenteeism (i. e. due to low motivation), affecting de facto student-teacher ratios. Private tutoring, reducing teachers’ motivation in ordinary classes Inflated or adjusted student numbers (including numbers of special needs pupils) quoted
to obtain better funding
Opportunity – O
Sub-standard educational material purchased due to manufacturers’ bribes, instructors’ copyrights, etc.
Embezzlement of funds intended for materials, school buildings, etc. Licences and authorisations for teaching obtained on false grounds via corrupt means Sale/purchase of diplomas/qualifications Special attention given in class to favoured pupils tied to influence or payments Private tutoring
Factors creating demand
Demand addressed Instances of corruption
? DA
Good grades and exam passes obtained through bribes Exam questions sold in advance Exam cheating countenanced or facilitated by education staff Removing the consequences of failing exams (re-admitting students under
false names)
? DQ
School places (for schools perceived to be “better”) ‘auctioned’ out to the highest bidder.
Private tutoring from class teacher outside school hours given to paying pupils
? DS
Staff recruitment, promotion and postings influenced by factors not related to suitability, such as bribes or sexual favours or political affiliation
High absenteeism (i. e. due to low motivation), affecting de facto student-teacher ratios.
Private tutoring, reducing teachers’ motivation in ordinary classes Inflated or adjusted student numbers (including numbers of special needs
pupils) quoted to obtain better funding
? O
Sub-standard educational material purchased due to manufacturers’ bribes, instructors’ copyrights, etc.
Embezzlement of funds intended for materials, school buildings, etc. Licences and authorisations for teaching obtained on false grounds via
corrupt means Sale/purchase of diplomas/qualifications Special attention given in class to favoured pupils tied to influence or
payments Private tutoring
Milovanovitch
INTES assessment
Stakeholder interviews;
media reports
Surveys (PISA; national and international
corruption perception surveys)
Data and information
grid; national data and
indicators
Sources for country assessments
Textbooks and learning material
Infrastructure
Curriculum and teaching time
Classroom climate
Learning outcomes
Budget formulation
Execution and disbursement, cash
flows
Private investments
Education standards
Continuous assessment
Promotion exams
Transition to tertiary education
Performance incentives
Parental and private involvement
Vocational schools
Autonomy and decentralisation
Standardised entrance exams
Other admission criteria
Assessment and examinations
Coursework
Awarding of credentials
Research: Ethical standards (interest of
research)
Research: Process (data/results)
Salaries
Motivation
Supply
Professionalism – Teacher TrainingPre-School
Primary and secondary education
Tertiary Education
Level I - System level demand analysis Pre-university education and tertiary education
Teachers
Quality of learning environment
Assessment
Funding
Education coverage and provision
Governance: system management
University admission
Academic work
Quality assurance
Staff career management
Financial management
Governance: academic boards
Understanding of academic integrity
Internal quality assurance
Accreditation system
Recruitment and appointment
Career development
Salaries
Motivation
Funds
SpendingRepresentation and
competencies
Milovanovitch
Level I Example
Quality of learning environment
Textbooks and learning material
Infrastructure
Curriculum and teaching time
Classroom climate
Learning outcomes
Process of textbook production: selection; procurement; delivery
Renewal of textbooks - frequency? Who initiates it?
Textbooks suppliers in the past 5 years, per level and subject
Freedom of schools and teachers to choose materials?
Shortage of learning materials? Comparison with PISA index on quality of educational resourcesAffordability of textbooks: Price? Renting schemes? Complaints from parents on affordability and from teachers on supply?
curriculum and syllabuses for key subjects (mathematics, literature and reading, foreign language, chemistry, physics geo), incl. hours
Are assessment outcomes used to make curricular decisions?
Is there curriculum autonomy at classroom level and if yes, to what extent?
PISA index on disciplinary climate
Abuse of authority: any reported cases of abuse? How many in the past 5 years and for what? Describe disciplinary measures undertaken
Student teacher ratios - primary, secondary, initial and secondary VET
Classroom diversity: ESCS; within school variance
PISA index of teacher-student relations
PISA scores
Repetition and Drop-Out Rates
Is the condition of school infrastructure known and recorded? Is this information available? What is the condition of school infrastructure?
Decision process for capital investments - building of schools and kindergartens: criteria, funding sources, initiative?
How many schools were built in the past 5 years? Where, and why there?
Responsibilities for maintenance of school infrastructure
Level II – Enabling factors and preventive framework
Integrity climate
Regulatory framework
Accountability mechanisms
Budget monitoring and evaluation
Human resource management
Transparency
Corruption perception index – Transparency International
OECD SIGMA – horizontal integrity assessment
Competitiveness Index – World Economic Forum
Development partner assessments
National corruption assessments
Sector corruption assessment
Investment and business climate ratings
Anti-corruption agencies
Legislation: criminalisation of corruption
Legislation: public sector integrity
Anti-corruption strategies: national
Anti-corruption strategies: sectoral
Anti-corruption strategies: projects
Off-budget funding
Expenditure evaluations
State audit
Internal school audits (if applicable)
Staffing policies
DeterrentsPublic involvement
Inspections
School boards
Leadership
External quality assurance
Parliamentary control
Whistleblowers
Milovanovitch
Integrity analysis sample
Private tutoring by the same teacher
Irregular payments for access
Misuse of authority
Forced purchase of learning materials
Staff postings through payments
Lack of learning in class
Low salary levels
Incoherence of transition criteria
Flawed textbook production
Weak/malfunctioning school inspections
Lack of parental involvement
Flawed system of staff appointment
Sh
ort
com
ing
s
Corruption incidence
Demand addressed
Access to education
Better quality
Greed and opportunity
Demand related to staff
Milovanovitch
The INTES Assessment cycle
Information gathering and desk research
Site visits
Consultations and fine tuning
Submission of draft report
Dissemination
Milovanovitch
INTES: The short-term task at hand
• Introduce a framework for assessing integrity of education systems in view of corruption prevention.
• Provide countries which carried out an INTES assessment with a tool for follow-up work and tailored, sector-level recommendations on how to address shortcomings causing corruption.
INTES: Outcomes and beneficiaries
Outcomes: • Assessment report with analysis of integrity
related shortcomings and policy recommendations which is– A tool for country level follow up– Capacity building for specialised bodies – A guideline for adjustment of legislative and strategic
framework and law enforcement mechanisms towards greater sector relevance
• Beneficiaries: – Ministries of Education– Bodies involved in designing and implementing anti-
corruption policies and measures– Lawmakers– Stakeholders in education– International partners