Education Policy Outlook 2018

Chapter 3. Equity and quality: Policy trends, progress and impact

Abstract

This chapter examines key education policies implemented in OECD countries between 2008 and 2017 to improve equity and quality for students. Taking a comparative approach, it analyses overall education policy trends, progress and impact since 2008, examining the scope of intervention of key reported policies on this issue. Policies analysed encompass improving early childhood education and care, reducing the impact of system-level practices and providing equal access to all students regardless of socio-economic or cultural background.

Highlights

• Many participating education systems have reported continuity in implementing measures to promote successful outcomes for all students at the school level, but their approach to achieving this goal has changed over the years. Most of the older policies reported (implemented mainly between 2008 and 2014) are general strategies to improve the quality of education for all students, while more recent policies (implemented mainly between 2015 and 2017) tend to be directed at students from specific population groups or with more targeted needs, including immigrant students, Indigenous students and students with special educational needs. The different approaches reported by participating education systems indicate that a range of interventions are required for particular contexts to foster resilience and increase performance of all students.

• Early childhood education and care (ECEC) continues to be an area of policy action reported in many participating OECD countries. Most education systems have identified their main efforts as providing equal or cost-free access to ECEC for all and ensuring the quality of education, as well as the preparedness of students at this level. Most policies reported as still in place are general strategies introduced to improve the coverage and quality of ECEC. More recent policies reported tend to target improving access and coverage for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• Another issue identified is addressing the features and practices in education systems that can negatively impact students’ ability to succeed throughout their academic pathways. Policies reported as still in place or recently implemented are targeted policies aiming to reduce early tracking and prevent grade repetition, although a small number of education systems reported promoting such policies in the EPO Survey 2016-17.

Introduction

Promoting equity and quality in education systems refers to creating and reinforcing positive conditions for high-quality education provision and equal access across the policy ecosystem, starting in ECEC and continuing through secondary education, vocational education and training (VET) and tertiary education, as noted in Chapter 2. Equity can be achieved in education when personal or social circumstances, such as gender, ethnic origin or family background, do not prevent students from achieving educational potential (fairness) and all individuals reach at least a basic minimum level of skills (inclusion). Quality education is achieved when students learn high-level skills adapted to their individual interests and needs that will give them the foundations to succeed later on in life (OECD, 2012; OECD, 2015a).

As noted in Chapter 2, education systems participating in the EPO Survey 2016-17 continued to report addressing performance gaps as policy priorities: gaps due to socio-economic background, gaps among students from different population sub-groups and different regions, and gaps among boys and girls. At the same time, specific emerging priorities reported to the OECD include the integration of immigrants into education systems, decreasing the high share of low performers, preventing grade repetition and reducing tracking. The OECD Secretariat has identified some correspondence between policy priorities identified and policy developments.

This chapter analyses policy continuity and policy change in 33 OECD education systems between 2008 and 2017, in key education policies on equity and quality (as defined in the EPO analytical framework), along with available evidence on implementation outcomes. It provides a comparative overview of how OECD education systems are: 1) improving access to ECEC; 2) reducing the negative impact of system-level policies on equity and quality; and 3) providing equal access to all regardless of socio-economic or cultural background, specific needs or place of residence (see the Reader’s Guide).

Improving early childhood education and care

Box 3.1. Policy pointer: Improving ECEC

High-quality ECEC aids children in their early development and later school performance in several ways, including language use and emerging academic skills, early literacy and numeracy, and socio-emotional skills (OECD Starting Strong reports, 2001, 2006, 2011a, 2015b, 2017a; OECD, 2018; Burchinal, Zaslow and Tarullo, 2016; Cappella, Aber and Kim, 2016; Melhuish et al., 2015; Yoshikawa and Kabay, 2015).

• Policy priority identified (OECD): Increasing access to and quality of ECEC.

• Principle of action identified (OECD): Increase access to and quality of ECEC by, for example, implementing monitoring systems.

• Summary of policy trend identified: OECD education systems have worked to increase access to ECEC and improve its quality and the transition from ECEC to primary education. While relatively older policies tend to be broader in scope, more recent policies tend to be targeted at children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• Examples of policies:

  • Access: AUS, FRA, DEU, HUN, IRL, NOR, SVN

  • Quality and transitions: AUT, ITA, NOR, SWE

Note: See Annex C, Box C.1 for a summary of education systems where increasing access to and quality of ECEC is identified as a relevant policy priority, as well as selected related policies.

ECEC includes all arrangements providing care and education for children under compulsory school age (typically age 0-6), regardless of the setting, funding, opening hours or programme content (OECD, 2015b). Across OECD countries, the number of children as young as 3 years old who are enrolled in ECEC is increasing (OECD, 2017a).

Provision and delivery of ECEC are among the initial ways in which a country can target equity and quality in its education systems. Evidence shows that investing in early and primary education facilitates students’ development and acquisition of skills and knowledge (OECD, 2015a; OECD, 2017b). ECEC can positively impact students’ later learning, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds whose environments and interactions outside of school may not provide them with the opportunities and the skills to achieve higher performance at later stages of education (OECD, 2012). Investing in high-quality ECEC is cost-effective for countries, as it yields higher returns later on, when students enter the labour market (OECD, 2012).

Many OECD education systems have expanded access to ECEC, particularly for parents with a greater need for childcare, as result of a desire to join the labour force or provide children with opportunities for development and learning, and in response to the increased entry of women into the workforce (OECD, 2016a). Some policy options adopted by education systems to increase ECEC enrolment include providing legal entitlement to a place in early childcare for children under age 5, or extending compulsory education to lower ages (OECD, 2015a; OECD, 2016a; OECD, 2017c). As part of these efforts, governments have also expanded funding for these programmes. Between 2000 and 2013, expenditure by OECD countries on ECEC increased on average by 45%, which corresponded to an increase from 0.48% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 0.69% (OECD, 2017b). However, research shows that the discussion on ECEC in recent years has progressively shifted from a focus on increasing access to improving quality, as the quality of ECEC services provided defines the overall benefits for children (OECD, 2018).

Education policy continuity and reform across the OECD, 2008-17

Responses to the EPO Survey 2016-17 and the EPO Country Profiles published in 2017 suggest that ECEC remains an important area of policy action for many member countries and that there is continuity in these policies. Survey results show that at least 23 key older education policies on ECEC (i.e. those implemented between 2008 and 2014) are still in place in participating countries. In general terms, these relatively older policies were originally designed or have evolved mainly to expand or modify ECEC coverage to increase access for all children, as in Australia, Belgium (Flemish and German-speaking Communities), the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Korea, Norway, Portugal and Slovenia. At the same time, education systems have put in place policies to improve the quality of ECEC and student preparedness for primary education, as in Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Norway and Sweden.

For more recent key education policies (i.e. those implemented starting in 2015), the primary objective reported by participating education systems is providing equal access to ECEC, as in Belgium (French and German-speaking Communities), Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Slovenia.

Table 3.1 classifies the key education policies reported to the OECD according to their scope of intervention: 1) Comprehensive (overarching general strategies using various policy tools); 2) Content (specifically related to content knowledge); and 3) Targeted (focused on a specific recipient or approach). It also indicates whether policies are: 1) Still in place (continued since the 2015 Education Policy Outlook comparative report and/or policies implemented between 2008 and 2014); 2) Modified (e.g. content, scope, coverage and/or replacing an older policy); or 3) Recent (implemented as of 2015).

Promoting greater access to ECEC

Across education systems, there is currently a trend towards providing universal early education for children as young as age 3, and more and more children are participating (OECD, 2015b). On average across OECD education systems, enrolment of younger children in ECEC programmes has been increasing. Between 2005 and 2015, enrolment of 3-year-olds increased from 54% to 73% and enrolment of 4-year-olds rose from 73% to 86% (OECD, 2017a). At the same time, education systems have reported policies that are still in place, or have recently been modified or implemented, targeting increased participation of specific population groups at this level of education.

Among the education systems that participated in the EPO Survey 2016-17, approaches to achieve access to ECEC range from promoting universal measures for all children to providing specific types of support for children and their families. In Australia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, Portugal and Slovenia, for example, policies aim to ensure more universal access to ECEC for all children, although the starting age for legal entitlement to ECEC can vary (it starts at age 1 in Norway and Slovenia). Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community), Germany, Ireland, Italy and Norway have also implemented supporting policies to provide additional services that specifically target disadvantaged families, in order to improve children’s learning opportunities at future stages of education. These range from providing financial aid (Ireland and Norway) to also providing practical and emotional support (Australia). Norway, Ireland and Slovenia also took measures to make ECEC costs more affordable.

Table 3.1. Policies to consolidate ECEC, 2008-17

Code	Comprehensive policies	Code	Content	Code	Targeted
GENERAL STRATEGY and STRUCTURE		CURRICULUM		DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS
S	Australia: Series of National Partnership Agreements on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education (2008-19)	S	Finland [SN]: National Core Curriculum for Pre-primary Education (2014)	S	Belgium (Fl) [SN]: Priority access to ECEC for children under 3 for single parents and/or low-income parents (2009)
R	Austria: School Entry and Primary School package of the 2015 education reform (2016)	R	Finland [SN]: National Core Curriculum for ECEC (2016)	R	Germany: Programme on language education (2016)
R	Austria [SN]: Expansion of all-day schooling (2017-25)	S	France: New curriculum for all levels of compulsory education (2013/14)	R	Germany: Programme on building bridges to early education for families with refugee background and low socio-economic status (2017)
R	Belgium (Fr) [SN]: Pact for Excellence in Teaching (2015-30)	S	Iceland [SN]: National curriculum guidelines for pre-primary (2011)	R	Hungary: Lowering the age of compulsory participation in kindergarten from age 5 to age 3 (2015-16) as part of the National Public Education Act
S	Belgium (Dg) [SN]: Decree on childhood care (2014) providing priority access to ECEC for children under 3.	S M	Italy: National Curriculum Guidelines Reform for ISCED levels, including pre-primary education (2012, revised 2018) (Ministerial Decree No. 254/2012)	S	Ireland: After-School Childcare Scheme (ACSS, 2013) for low-income families
S	Canada [SN]: CMEC Early Learning and Development Framework (2014)	S M	Korea [SN]: Nuri curriculum (2012)	R	Ireland: Community Childcare Subvention (CCS, 2016) for low-income families
R	Canada [SN]: Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework (2017)	S M	Norway: Revised Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens (2017) (replaced the Framework Plan of 2006)	R	Norway: New regulation and a subsidy scheme for parental fees for ECEC (2016)
S	Chile [SN]: Series of measures to improve coverage and equity in ECEC (2014-18)	S M	Portugal [SN]: Curriculum Guidelines for Preschool Education (2012, 2016)	S M	Slovenia: Kindergarten Act 2008; Amendments to the Kindergarten Act (2010, 2017)
R	Czech Republic [SN]: Amendment to the Education Act (2016) making preschool education compulsory (2017-20)	S M	Sweden: ECEC curriculum (1998, revised 2016)
S	France: Reform of the Republic’s Schools (2013)
S	Germany: Legal entitlement to an ECEC place to children age 1 and 2 (2013)
S	Germany: Childcare Funding Act (2014)
S	Germany [SN]: Process to improve the quality of ECEC and negotiate national quality goals (2014) through the Guidelines for the promotion of quality development for good education in early childhood (2017) and the ECEC Prize (2018)
S	Hungary: Decree on the Basic National Programme of Kindergarten Education (2012)
S M	Ireland: Early Childhood Care and Education "free preschool" programme (2010, expanded in 2016)
R	Italy: Larger structures providing more integrated services for children aged 0-6 (2015, 2017)
S M	Korea [SN]: After-school childcare for 3-5 year-olds (2013)
S M	Norway: Legal right to a place in ECEC from age 1 (2009)
R	Portugal [SN]: Universal free preschool for children age 3-5 by 2019 (2017-19)

1. [SN]: Policy information was only included as an additional policy of potential interest to other countries in the country snapshots (Chapter 7).

2. See Annex B for information on policies reported in the previous cycle for which no further details were available.

Sources: EPO Survey 2016-17 and EPO Country Profiles published in 2017 for Austria, Belgium (Fl, Fr and Dg), Italy and Sweden (see the Reader’s Guide).

Policy focus

Australia’s series of National Partnership (NP) Agreements on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education (2008-19) began in 2008, following a joint Commonwealth, State and Territory action in Australia to improve early childhood education programmes and care services. This series of agreements was also put in place to ensure that all children have access to quality early childhood education programmes for 15 hours per week (for a total of 600 hours) during the year before they attend primary school. Since 2013, the NP Agreements have focused on participation of disadvantaged children in ECEC, as well as providing programmes delivered by qualified early childhood teachers (Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2016).

• Progress or impact: By 2016, all jurisdictions in Australia had exceeded the benchmark of 95% of children enrolled in quality early childhood education programmes. A majority of districts also exceeded this benchmark for the enrolment of Indigenous children. Nationally, 93% of the children enrolled in a preschool programme were enrolled for 600 hours or more. Although one in ten children participating in quality early childhood education were still not enrolled for 600 hours or more, this figure represented a significant overall increase compared to 2008, when only 12% of children were enrolled for the same number of hours (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2015).

France’s 2013 Reform of the Republic’s Schools (Refondation de l'école de la République) included additional elements to redefine the goals of preschools and to welcome more children below age 3 into ECEC facilities. These modifications were implemented following a decrease in the number of 2-year-olds attending preschool, from 34.6% in 1999 to around 11% in 2012 (DEPP, 2014). As a result, more than 1 100 classes were created and opened to children in this age group to encourage especially disadvantaged families to enrol their children in ECEC. This corresponded to 25 000 new spots in ECEC facilities. France also implemented a new curriculum during 2013/14 for all levels of compulsory education, including ECEC. The new curriculum, based on a common framework of knowledge, skills and culture, aims to provide students with the necessary tools to achieve their ambitions.

• Progress or impact: Although many of the new spaces remained vacant at the beginning of the school year 2013/14, the number of 2-year-olds in preschools increased for the first time in ten years (Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, 2017; DEPP, 2014). Overall enrolment of 2-year-olds increased in 2013 to 11.7% (and 20.6% in high-priority schools) (Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, 2017). Also, at the beginning of the 2017/18 school year, enrolment for children 2 years of age and older in high-priority preschools (REP and REP+) was 20.5%, much higher than the 9.7% in non-priority schools. More than 30% of 2-year-olds enrolled attend high-priority schools (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, 2018).

Germany extended childcare extensively from 2008 to 2015, as part of the Childcare Funding Act (Kinderförderungsgesetzes, KiföG). In 2014, at least 41% percent of parents with children under age 3 stated that they needed a childcare place. As a result of this growing need, the fourth federal investment programme is being made for 2017 to 2020, to provide places to implement the legal entitlement of parents to an ECEC place for children who are 1 and 2 years old, which was initially approved in 2013. The federal investment programme will contribute to the creation of 100 000 additional ECEC places for children from birth to school entry (BMFSJ, 2015).

• Progress or impact: The 2014-16 evaluation of the Childcare Funding Act (Kinderförderungsgesetzes, KiföG) assessed the period from 2008 to 2015. It highlights the programme’s impact on children and parents whose children benefitted from childcare, as well as on actors from children’s care facilities and others affiliated with ECEC. Overall, childcare for children under age 3 rose from 17.6% in 2008 to 32.3% in 2014, and then to 32.7% in 2016 (BMFSJ, 2015; Destatis, 2016). The need for ECEC differs across the German Länder, and as the report points out, some have displayed better capacity than others at providing ECEC for children at this age. As a result, although the ratio of childcare needed compared to the childcare rate fell from 13 to 9.2 between 2012 and 2014, at least 185 000 children across the country still did not have a spot in childcare by 2014. At the same time, parents whose children participated in ECEC were satisfied with the childcare they received. Most sought places in children's day nurseries for children under age 3. Overall, most parents easily found a childcare location for children age 1 and older. More than half reported having already found childcare for children six months after birth (BMFSJ, 2015).

Germany established various programmes to foster equity of access to ECEC services, such as the programmes on building bridges to early education for families with refugee background and low socio-economic status (Kita-Einstieg: Brücken bauen in frühe Bildung, 2017) and focusing on emergent literacy (Sprach-Kitas: Weil Sprache der Schlüssel zur Welt ist, 2016).

• Progress or impact: With a view to the recent challenge of integrating children from refugee families, a representative survey among ECEC services carried out in March 2016 showed that one in three ECEC centres participating in the survey had received children from refugee families (Baisch et. al, 2017).

Hungary’s Decree on the Basic National Programme of Kindergarten Education came into force in 2013, outlining the principles and tasks of kindergarten education. Also, starting in 2015, participation in ECEC became mandatory from age 3, with minimum attendance of four hours per day. Compulsory kindergarten education is expected to improve the chances of disadvantaged children and may reduce early selection and early school leaving (in 2016, the share of 18-24 year-olds who had either dropped out of school or left work reached 12.4%, the highest share since 2007) (Eurostat, 2017).

• Progress or impact: In 2012, the enrolment rates of 3-year-olds were at 74%, with an increase to 81% by 2015 (OECD, 2014; OECD, 2017a). In 2015, 94.7% of Hungarian children between age 4 and the starting age of compulsory education were participating in ECEC, compared to 94.5% in 2012. By 2016, enrolment for children from age 4 to the starting age of compulsory education had increased to 95.3%, above the European benchmark of 95% (EC, 2016a). The ECEC participation rate of Roma children of the same age is 91%, the highest in the region (FRA, 2016).

Since 2010, Ireland has either implemented or expanded three ECEC policies to increase coverage, especially to benefit low-income families, by providing childcare subventions and an after-school childcare programme (ACSS, 2013). The Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) or “free preschool” programme was implemented in 2010 and expanded in 2016 to facilitate access to childcare for all children between age 3 and age 5.5. The government also implemented the Community Childcare Subvention Programme (CCS) for qualifying parents to reduce the burden of financial costs for disadvantaged families who would like childcare for children at any age while pursuing training or education courses (DCYA, 2014).

• Progress or impact: A total of 104 441 children benefitted from at least one of the following three Irish programmes for ECEC: ECCE, CCS, and Training and Employment Childcare programmes, which include after-school childcare (ACSS). The number of children registered in 2015/16 represented an 8% increase from the 96 508 children enrolled in these programmes during the 2014/15 school year. Specifically regarding the ECCE programme, 73 964 children took part in it in the 2015/16 school year, at a total cost of EUR 178 million. Compared to the 2014/15 school year, this is an increase of almost 13% in participation and 28% in costs. According to the report, the increase can be partly attributed to the announcement of extra entitlements in the 2016 budget (Pobal, 2016).

Norway extended the legal right to a place in ECEC from age 1 in 2009. This implies that a child’s right to a kindergarten place is independent of the parents’ labour-force participation and the child is to be granted access to a place as well as quality education (OECD, 2015c). In addition, a new regulation and a programme of subsidies for parental fees were implemented in 2015 and 2016, to prevent financial burdens for families whose children would otherwise be unable to participate in education at this level (Norway Ministry of Education and Research, 2014). In particular, the government hopes that these measures will help to increase the proportion of minority-language children attending kindergarten, as their participation rate in ECEC lags behind that of students who are native speakers.

• Progress or impact: In 2015, the participation gap in kindergarten remained between minority-language children and children who are native speakers, but the gap had almost disappeared for children by age 5. The impact of the programme for parental fees is being closely monitored. Overall, the real costs paid by parents for kindergarten had been significantly reduced in 2015 compared to a decade ago (OECD, 2015c). The proportion of childcare operating costs paid by parents decreased from 37% in 2002 to 15% in 2012. In addition, municipalities are legally required to offer reduced fees for siblings and to put in place additional subsidies for low-income families. In 2015, Norway implemented national measures to reduce fees. No families are to pay more than 6% of their yearly family income (limited by the nationally set maximum fee). From 2016, all 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds in low-income families (as defined in the state budget) have the right to 20 hours per week of free kindergarten.

In Slovenia, the Kindergarten Act (2008) and the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2012) grants payments to parents with two or more children enrolled in preschool education in order to improve access to ECEC. Parents only pay 30% for the second child and no fee for younger siblings. The amount of the fee is determined according to a grid of nine levels of income, with no fees for those with the lowest income and no parents who pay the full fee. Parents with the highest level of income in the grid (99% of the net average salary) pay 77% of the fee. Municipalities can also further reduce these fees, according to their policies in this area. An amendment to the Kindergarten Act (2010) allows municipalities to provide ECEC in buildings not constructed for this purpose. Further Amendments to the Kindergarten Act (2017) allow for increased flexibility in providing a public network of kindergartens, which might include units or sections of a public kindergarten in enterprises. The amendments also provide for new types of short, entirely state-funded programmes to be organised by kindergartens for children not enrolled in preschool education one year before entering primary school.

• Progress or impact: Evidence shows that the Kindergarten Act has made ECEC more affordable, with enrolment rates above the OECD average (OECD, 2015d). The 2010 amendment has enabled municipalities to solve spatial issues rapidly with relatively little funds (MIZS, 2015). However, it has since been advised that excess teaching resources could be transferred into locations facing stronger demand (OECD, 2015d).

Promoting education quality and children’s preparedness for primary school

Implementing policies that ensure quality in ECEC and managing transitions into primary education are ways in which education systems can begin preparing children for school and for life and can improve their educational outcomes (OECD, 2017b). This includes modifications to what children are expected to learn at this stage of education, as well as how they are expected to learn it. For example, Austria reported an education reform plan to improve children’s transition from ECEC into kindergarten, and Sweden expressed an interest in establishing more student-centred guidelines for curricula in order to better prepare students for the transition to primary schools. In 2016, Portugal presented revised Curriculum Guidelines for Preschool Education, which take an integrated approach to different content areas and link to the curriculum of the first cycle of basic education. In 2017, as part of the Good School reforms package, Italy implemented larger structures providing more integrated ECEC services for 0-6 year-olds (Poli per l’Infanzia). This reform aims to streamline the delivery of services, while the government also works to improve quality and accessibility (for example, since 2017, childcare vouchers for EUR 1 000 are provided to children born since 2016 and under age 3).

Policy focus

Austria is in the process of comprehensively reforming its education system, through the framework of the 2015 education reform plan. In 2015, representatives of the federal government and the provinces presented a proposal for education reform in Austria. Based on the work of an expert commission, it included a roadmap for implementation. The first reform package, entitled School Entry and Primary School (Schulrechtsänderungsgesetz), was adopted in 2016. To improve the transition between ECEC and primary school and strengthen students’ competencies, it will unify the last year of kindergarten and the first two years of primary school into a single school-entry phase. This change aims to allow for easier early identification of learning difficulties, as well as an exchange of teachers between kindergarten and primary schools. To maximise integration of students, especially those with an immigrant background or who have recently arrived in the country, the package also promotes measures to foster the learning of German starting in kindergarten.

• Progress or impact: The School Entry and Primary School package was implemented nationwide in 2016/17. A further package of reforms, related to school autonomy and simplifying school administration (Bildungsreformgesetz) was implemented in 2017. Further measures to be legislated as part of the 2015 reform include an innovation package to provide broadband to schools, establishment of a foundation to support innovative projects in schools, and piloting of an “education compass” to monitor the development of 3-year-olds.

In 2018, Italy reformed its national curriculum guidelines for pre-primary education (Ministerial Decree No. 254/2012) to include a focus on active citizenship for children in kindergarten and the first cycle of education.

• Progress or impact: The 2012 guidelines for pre-primary schools and the first cycle of education were followed by three years of pilot programmes assisted by the Italian National Scientific Committee. The participating networks of schools discussed the impact of the implementation of the guidelines on the curriculum, didactic tools and learning environments. It resulted in much research and debate. However, it also revealed the persistence of situations of disorientation and uncertainty among the participating schools, as well as resistance to abandoning traditional didactic models. Testimonials gathered from territories highlighted the difficulty of integrating into the teaching profession the proposals, learning environments and levels of organisation that enhance autonomy and responsibility among students and help them to successfully acquire knowledge and develop relevant skills (Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca, 2018).

In Norway, the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens (2017), a regulation of the Kindergarten Act (2005), replaces the 2006 Framework Plan that prescribed a similar regulatory framework for kindergartens (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017a). The current Framework Plan describes the transition from kindergarten to school and stipulates that kindergarten should accommodate the transition. In collaboration with schools, kindergartens are responsible for facilitating the transition of children from kindergarten to Year 1 of compulsory education and to after-school groups, all in close collaboration with their families. Co-operation between kindergartens and schools is not regulated at the national level. It is managed by local authorities, in this case municipalities, and kindergarten owners (public and private) (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017a; Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017b).

• Progress or impact: National evidence stated that the Framework Plan could be more specific on the content of school preparatory activities, by including social competence and communication, children’s active participation and co-operation to a larger extent. It also identified a need for a good transition and coherence between kindergarten and school. Both assessments led to the revised Framework Plan implemented in 2017. Also, because co-operation between kindergartens and schools is regulated at the local level, it is expected that there will be differences in how this is managed and solved. This may result in unwanted local variations in quality and systems for transitions (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017a).

In 1998, Sweden introduced a new ECEC curriculum (Läroplan för Förskolan – Lpfö 98) designed to put children and play at the centre by: 1) ensuring continuous child development through the use of one national framework plan for ECEC; 2) balancing content by addressing academic and socio-emotional development; 3) reflecting on parental opinions and expectations; and 4) addressing respect for cultural values. Since 2010, this policy has gone through various revisions to improve the quality of education for all students. In 2010, the policy was subjected to revisions in order to improve the learning and social development of children and help them develop an interest in school. In 2016, a new round of policy revisions aimed to improve transitions and co-operation between primary schools, schools and leisure centres to create context, continuity and progression in children’s development and learning. In 2017, the government asked the National Agency for Education to propose amendments to the curriculum (läroplan) of pre-primary education to clarify its educative role and improve its quality (Regeringen, 2018).

• Progress or impact: The ECEC reform was reviewed in 2002 and 2008, and both evaluations indicated that the new curriculum had a strong, positive impact on schools. The 2008 results revealed that the significance of the reform had grown for schools in the ten years following its implementation, reinforcing the importance of preschool learning in education, as well as fostering and reinforcing connections between the various levels of actors (municipal, national) in the country’s ECEC system. The evaluation also highlighted the increased coordination between preschools in the preparedness of children for later education (Skolverket, 2008). The 2018 quality review by the Swedish School Inspectorate indicates that there are challenges in the quality of preschools and the achievement of objectives, particularly regarding the educational assignment of pre-primary education (Regeringen, 2018).

Reducing the negative impact of system-level policies and practices on equity and quality

Box 3.2. Policy pointer: Reducing the negative impact of system-level policies and practices

System-level policies, such as grade repetition and early tracking, can hinder equity and quality in education system (OECD, 2012; OECD, 2015a). PISA results show that the later students are tracked into different pathways and the less prevalent the incidence of grade repetition, the more equitable will be the school system, or the weaker the association between students’ socio-economic status and their performance in science (OECD, 2016b; OECD, 2016c). At the same time, the negative effects of early tracking can be addressed, for example, through well-structured and well-resourced system-level policies (OECD, 2015a; OECD, 2016b; OECD, 2016c).

• Policy priorities identified (OECD): Reducing high levels of grade repetition. Delaying tracking of students into the system.

• Principles of action identified (OECD): Remove grade repetition and replace it with individualised support for students who are lagging behind. Guarantee the same content of education, ensuring high minimum curricular standards in all tracks, with regular performance assessment.

• Summary of policy trend identified: Compared to other policy areas, participating education systems reported fewer policies specifically targeting system-level practices, despite the evidence available on the effects of some of them. Some participating education systems have taken measures to decrease grade repetition and the stratification of early tracking. In the case of tracking, for example, the low number of reported policies might be because implementing these types of policies can require larger structural changes, a more consequent use of additional resources or deeper changes in social conceptions.

• Examples of policies:

  • Delaying tracking: AUT

  • Decreasing grade repetition: BEL (Fr), PRT

Note: See Annex C, Boxes C.9 and C.10 for a summary of education systems where reducing high levels of grade repetition and delaying tracking of students are identified as a relevant policy priority, as well as selected related policies.

The policies and practices of an education system determine the quality of education that students receive. If not carefully designed, system-level policies and practices, such as grade repetition, student tracking, school choice and school funding strategies, can exacerbate inequalities and result in school failure (OECD, 2012; OECD, 2015a).

Grade repetition occurs when a student is held back at the same grade level for an additional year following a formal or informal assessment (OECD, 2012). According to the 2015 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), grade repetition is still practiced in many OECD countries: 11.3% of 15-year-olds have repeated a grade in either primary, lower secondary or upper secondary education. Although grade repetition aims to raise student outcomes, evidence suggests it does not improve results and, instead, causes financial strain for schools and delays students’ entry into the labour market (OECD, 2012; OECD, 2013a; OECD, 2015a).

Early tracking can also negatively impact equity and quality in education. Education systems establish early tracking systems to assign students to different education options at early ages (OECD, 2015a). Education tracks may be primarily academic or vocational, or they may offer a combination of academic and vocational courses (Kerckhoff, 2000; LeTendre, Hofer and Shimizu, 2003). On average across OECD education systems, the first age of selection is 14, the age at which most students start lower secondary education. In about two-thirds of OECD countries (23 of 35), students are first selected at the age of 15-16, although tracking can start as early as age 10-11 in a smaller share (6 countries) (OECD, 2016b). Evidence from PISA 2015 also shows that the later students are first selected into different schools or education programmes and the less prevalent is the incidence of grade repetition, the more equitable will be the school system, or the weaker the association between students’ socio-economic status and their performance in science. At the same time, the potential negative effects of early tracking can be mitigated if the system is well structured and well resourced, or can provide multiple effective opportunities throughout students’ academic pathways from ECEC to tertiary education to correct some obvious socio-economic imbalances (OECD, 2016b; OECD, 2016c).

Education policy continuity and reform across the OECD, 2008-17

Few policies specifically targeting system-level practices were reported by education systems participating in the EPO Survey 2016-17 and the EPO Country Profiles published in 2017, compared to the number of policies described for ECEC (Table 3.1) and for success of all students (Table 3.3). In the case of tracking, for example, this might be because implementing these types of policies requires structural changes or rearrangements of strategies and programmes that have been in place for a long time and are, therefore, expensive and might lack public support (OECD, 2015a).

Survey results show that at least two key education policies on system-level practices are still in place in participating countries: Austria’s lower secondary school model to reduce early tracking, and further efforts in the French Community of Belgium to prevent grade repetition among primary school students. Recent key policies reported in Portugal also target reducing grade repetition, as well as preventing school failure.

Although few system-level policies and practices were reported overall, some OECD education systems highlighted an ongoing need to address these issues within their education systems, as noted in Chapter 2. Other policies targeting these practices may exist in participating education systems, but only system-level policies reported in the EPO Survey 2016-17 were considered for this analysis.

Table 3.2 classifies the key education policies reported to the OECD according to their scope of intervention: 1) Comprehensive (overarching general strategies using various policy tools); 2) Content (specifically related to content knowledge); and 3) Targeted (focused on a specific recipient or approach). It also indicates whether policies are: 1) Still in place (continued since the 2015 Education Policy Outlook comparative report and/or policies implemented between 2008 and 2014); 2) Modified (e.g. content, scope, coverage); replacing an older policy); or 3) Recent (implemented as of 2015).

Table 3.2. Policies tackling system-level practices that hinder equity, 2008-17

Code	Targeted policies	Code	Targeted policies
REDUCE EARLY TRACKING		GRADE REPETITION AND SCHOOL FAILURE
S	Austria: New Secondary School (2007/08)	S	Belgium (Fr): Take-off Project (2012)
		R	Portugal: National Programme to Promote Educational Success (2016)
		R	Portugal [SN]: Series of policies to promote student success, including a new framework of competences, a National Plan for School Success (PNPSE), tutoring for students who repeat two grades and the Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy Programme

1. [SN]: Policy information was only included as an additional policy of potential interest to other countries in the country snapshots (Chapter 7).

2. See Annex B for information on policies reported in the previous cycle for which no further details were available.

Sources: EPO Survey 2016-17 and EPO Country Profiles published in 2017 for Austria, Belgium (Fl, Fr and Dg), Italy and Sweden (see the Reader’s Guide).

Reducing grade repetition and preventing school failure

Evidence suggests that although the short-term effects of grade repetition can be positive, as it theoretically gives low performers more time to learn coursework, these effects decline over time, and the practice risks generating negative feelings among students who are forced to repeat (OECD, 2012). It may even lead to early school leaving (OECD, 2016b).

PISA 2015 found that grade repetition was used less frequently in 2015 than in 2009 in 30 countries and economies, and increased in only 5 countries during this period (OECD, 2016c). Across OECD countries, grade repetition decreased by 7% between 2009 and 2015 across all education levels (OECD, 2016b).

As reported in the EPO Survey 2016-17, policies to reduce grade repetition at all levels of school were recently implemented in the French Community of Belgium, where children in participating schools are only to be held back under special circumstances, and in Portugal, where the government is aiming, through a “zero retention” target, to eliminate grade repetition for all students, as part of a comprehensive policy approach aimed at promoting school success.

Policy focus

In 2016, the French Community of Belgium introduced a further series of measures aimed specifically at reducing the prevalence of children repeating the third pre-primary year. These measures are part of the Take-off Project, initiated in 2012 to prevent grade repetition among children age 2.5 to 8. These recent measures require that children be held back only in exceptional circumstances, following an assessment by the school leader and a psycho-social-medical centre (CPMS). They also introduce a skills assessment for children for early identification of learning difficulties and disabilities. Depending on the child’s outcomes on this assessment, a remediation plan can be put in place by the school, in partnership with the CPMS involved in the assessment, to increase the chances for a successful transfer to primary education. In additional, new curriculum standards were introduced for pre-primary schools to define core initial competence bases and promote smoother transitions from pre-primary to primary education.

• Progress or impact: As of 2010, grade retention occurred for students as early as in pre-primary education and through secondary education. In fact, as students got older, they were more and more likely to repeat a grade in both primary and secondary education (Enseignement en Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles, 2014). However, between 2009 and 2015, grade retention rates decreased for primary students from 18% to less than 15%. Between 2012 and 2015, grade retention for upper secondary students decreased from almost 52% to less than 50% (Enseignement en Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles, 2016). Following implementation of the initiative in 2012, at least 160 schools and 45 CPMS joined. By 2014, more than 290 schools and 75 CPMS were participating in the Take-off Project. Between 2012 and 2014, 847 children were enrolled in the project, through 61 CPMS and 215 schools (Enseignement en Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles, 2014).

Portugal has introduced a comprehensive national strategy with a focus on combating school failure and grade repetition, the National Programme to Promote Educational Success (Plano Nacional de Promoção do Sucesso Escolar, PNPSE, 2016). The Plan takes a preventive approach, promoting academic success and the improvement of learning, particularly in the early years of schooling. It aims to support schools to develop improvement plans, based on the principle that educational communities can better understand their contexts, difficulties and capabilities and are better prepared to design plans for strategic action. The Plan also aims to examine individual students’ competences more comprehensively across a range of disciplines, including the introduction of a basic student profile, and to support students who have already repeated grades through additional tutoring. School autonomy is also reinforced, especially on pedagogic issues, through the Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy programme.

• Progress or impact: The coverage of the PNPSE is high, with 663 schools developing a strategic plan around the framework for their schools. The PNPSE, combined with the schools that are already participating in similar activities through the Third Generation of the Education Territories of Priority Intervention Programme (TEIP3), now covers almost 99% of Portugal’s 811 schools. According to a recent European Commission report, the success of the plan in raising performance will depend on capacity to provide technical support and ensure regular monitoring of actions and overall coherence of the different projects (EC, 2017a). In addition, the Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy programme is also currently active in 235 schools.

Reducing early tracking

Across OECD education systems, assigning students to academic or vocational tracks (or a combination of the two) can take place as early as primary school. In Austria, students are first tracked into different educational pathways at age 10, which is the earliest age of tracking across OECD countries. More recently, Austria has made efforts to reduce the stratification of early tracking.

Policy focus

Austria implemented a new lower secondary school model, the New Secondary School (Neue Mittelschule, NMS) in 2007/08 to provide students with basic, comprehensive education. The NMS did not replace lower secondary academic education; it continues to be provided as a separate track. NMS students are not grouped by ability in core subjects in the first years (Years 5 and 6). After that, de facto streaming takes place through a differentiated grading system for students in Years 7 and 8, based on student ability. The new model features innovative teaching methods, including team teaching in some mathematics, English and German lessons with teachers from general higher secondary schools (Allgemeinbildende Höhere Schule, AHS), and aims to have curriculum and educational goals closer in content to the AHS. The total amount of investment for the introduction of the NMS is estimated at between EUR 164 million and EUR 250 million per year. The additional funding is intended to introduce new pedagogical methods, such as team teaching, to better respond to the needs of the heterogeneous population targeted by the NMS.

• Progress or impact: The new schools now cover over 60% of all students transferring from primary school. By the start of the 2015/16 school year, they had completely replaced general secondary schools for new entrants, with complete replacement expected by 2018/19. According to the summative evaluation of the NMS pilot in 2015, the introduction of the NMS has had mixed results. Compared to general secondary schools, the new schools appeared to provide slightly more positive learning environments overall and higher levels of student support. However, the report also found deficiencies in the implementation process, with interpretations of the model varying between schools. At the time of the report, students’ overall levels of achievement had not yet improved in the NMS. Given the recent rollout of the system, further research and a full evaluation of NMS will be required to fully assess its impact (OECD, 2017d).

Promoting education success for all

Box 3.3. Policy pointer: Promoting education success for all students

Every child is different, and every child can learn. Equity and quality in education are achieved when all individuals can reach at least a minimum level of skills (inclusion), but also when personal or social circumstances, such as socio-economic background, gender, ethnic origin or family background, do not hinder achieving education potential (fairness) (OECD, 2015a).

• Policy priorities identified (OECD): 1) Improving student performance for all; 2) Bridging performance gaps due to socio-economic backgrounds; 3) Improving the inclusion of immigrant students; 4) Bridging performance gaps among students from different minority groups; 5) Improving the integration of special education needs (SEN) students; 6) Bridging performance gaps among students across regions; 7) Tackling gender-specific choice of orientation leading to higher gender pay gaps.

• Principles of action identified (OECD): 1) Increase student mobility between tracks, employing better qualified teachers and establishing educational outcomes as a main target rather than focusing on increasing spending; 2) Increase educational and funding support for students with low socio-economic status; 3) Ensure early intervention for immigrant students with language courses and specific teacher training.; 4) Encourage students from minority groups to go into mainstream education and provide them with extra support if needed; 5) Expand inclusive education by increasing financial support for students with SEN in mainstream schools and providing support to teachers in those schools; 6) Develop measures to channel resources to most disadvantaged regions; and 7) Promote gender mainstreaming in educational institutions.

• Summary of policy trend identified: Policies to support education success for all are the largest group of policies collected. Education systems reported at least 25 policies still in place aiming, for example, to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, immigrant backgrounds and population sub-groups, students with SEN or those living in different regions within a country. Although fewer in number, more recent policies highlight similar objectives.

• Examples of policies:

  • Expanding and enhancing educational opportunities: DEU, ITA

  • Providing educational support and reinforcement for students from diverse backgrounds: AUS, BEL (Fl), CHL, DEU, FIN, NZL, PRT, SVN, GBR (ENG)

  • Supporting students with SEN: AUS, BEL (Fl), EST, LVA, SVN

Note: See Annex C, Boxes C.2-C.8 for a summary of education systems where promoting students success for all students, regardless of previous performance levels, socio-economic or cultural background, specific needs or place of residence, is identified as a relevant policy priority, as well as selected related policies.

While students’ personalities and interests matter, quality education systems should also be able to cater to students’ differences in terms of previous performance, background (e.g. socio-economic status, gender or ethnic origin), or personal circumstances (e.g. possible special education needs), so they can receive more equitable opportunities to reach their full potential. As part of these efforts, schools (particularly those at greater disadvantage) also need to be able to establish links with families and the community, or with other schools at the regional level, to provide better opportunities to students.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, persisting and emerging priorities reported by participating countries include reducing performance and attainment gaps among students of different groups (including gender, socio-economic background, minority and ethnic groups) and national regions, and sufficiently integrating immigrants into education systems.

Many OECD education systems reported policies that promote the success of disadvantaged students and other population groups within their education systems. In fact, most policies reported correspond to this priority group.

Education policy continuity and reform across the OECD, 2008-17

The EPO Survey has been able to collect a wide array of policies targeting success of students regardless of socio-economic or cultural background, specific educational needs or place of residence. Education systems reported at least 25 key policies still in place to support students from disadvantaged groups, immigrant backgrounds and population sub-groups, as well as students with special educational needs and those living in different regions within a country. These policies include: 1) Germany and Japan’s attempts to enhance education quality for all students, notably by improving students’ competencies across subjects; 2) improving student outcomes in Canada (Nova Scotia) and New Zealand by engaging with stakeholders, including students’ families and communities; 3) initiatives for the inclusion of students with special education needs in Australia, Iceland and Latvia; 4) additional support and resources to improve the performance and participation of girls, Indigenous and Roma students, and students from immigrant or disadvantaged backgrounds, as in Belgium (Flemish and French Communities), Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Turkey and the United Kingdom (England); and 5) Portugal’s aim to bridge performance gaps between its regions.

Although fewer in number, recently implemented policies highlight similar objectives: 1) support for Indigenous students and those from disadvantaged backgrounds in Australia; and 2) policies promoting the inclusion of students with special education needs in mainstream schools in Belgium (Flemish and French Communities) and Slovenia.

Table 3.3 classifies the key education policies reported to the OECD according to their scope of intervention: 1) Comprehensive (overarching general strategies using various policy tools); 2) Content (specifically related to content knowledge); and 3) Targeted (focused on a specific recipient or approach). It also indicates whether policies are: 1) Still in place (continued since the 2015 Education Policy Outlook comparative report and/or policies implemented between 2008 and 2014); 2) Modified (e.g. content, scope, coverage); replacing an older policy); or 3) Recent (implemented as of 2015).

Table 3.3. Policies to support education success for all, 2008-17

Code	Comprehensive policies	Code	Targeted policies
GENERAL STRATEGY AND STRUCTURE		STUDENTS FROM SPECIFIC POPULATION GROUPS
R	Austria [SN]: Language support for non-native German speakers 2016/17	S	Australia: National Disability Coordination Officer Program (NDCO, 2008)
S	Belgium (Fl): Funding based on socio-economic background of school and students as part of the Parliamentary Act for primary and secondary education (2008)	S	Australia (Queensland): National Indigenous Reform Agreement (2008)
S	Canada (Nova Scotia): SchoolsPlus programme (2008)	R	Australia [SN]: Smith Family’s Learning for Life Program (from 2016-17 to 2019-20)
S	Chile: Preferential School Subsidy (SEP, 2008)	R	Australia [SN]: Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP, 2017)
R	Chile [SN]: School Inclusion Law (2015)	R	Belgium (Fl): M-Decree (2015)
R	Chile [SN]: New Public Education Law (2017)	S M	Belgium (Fr) [SN]: Instrument for differentiated support (2009, 2017)
S M	Estonia [SN]: Reform of the national curriculum for basic schools and upper secondary (2010, 2014)	R	Czech Republic [SN]: Revision of the Framework Educational Programme (2015)
R	France [SN]: School of Confidence (2017)	S M	Estonia: Amendments (2017) to the Preschool Child Care Institutions Act (2000) and the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act (2010) to support students with special educational needs
S M	Germany: Education Alliances (2012) supporting out-of-school programmes	R	Japan [SN]: Grant-type scholarship system (2017)
S	Germany: Reform measures resolved by all Länder in the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany (2013)	S	Mexico [SN]: National Scholarship Programme (2014)
S	Germany: Education Through Language and Writing (BiSS, 2013-19)	S	New Zealand: Māori-medium education (1985)
S	Germany [SN]: Support strategy for poorer-performing pupils (2010)	S	New Zealand: Pasifika Education Plan (2013-17)
S M	Hungary [SN]: 2017 Revision of the National Core Curriculum (2012)	S	Slovenia: Placement of Children with Special Needs Act (2013)
S	Iceland [SN]: Regulation for students with special needs in public and private upper secondary schools (No. 230/2012, based on Article 34 of the Upper Secondary Act, No. 92/2008)	R	Slovenia [SN]: Act on comprehensive special treatment of preschool children (2017)
R	Italy: Good School Reform (Law 107/2015) (2015)	R	Turkey [SN]: Project for Increasing School Attendance Rates Especially for Girls (KEP-2, 2015-17) (replaced Project for Increasing Enrolment Rates Especially for Girls ([KEP-1, 2011‑13])
S	Japan [SN]: Third Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education (2018-22) (replaced the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education [2013-17])
S	Japan [SN]: Comprehensive After-School Plan for Children (2014)	STUDENTS FROM IMMIGRANT OR ROMA BACKGROUNDS
R	Japan [SN]: Project for Promoting Community Co-operation Activities for Learning and Education (2017)	R	Belgium (Fl) [SN]: Special measures to enhance the integration of refugees in the education system (2015-16)
S	Latvia: Education Development Guidelines 2014-20, through the Promotion of the Inclusion of Students with Special Needs (2011)	S M	Belgium (Fr) [SN]: DASPA Decree (2012, 2015)
R	Mexico [SN]: New Educational Model for Compulsory Education: Education for Freedom and Creativity (2017)	S M	Finland: National Core Curriculum for Instruction Preparing for Basic Education (2015); National Core Curriculum for Instruction Preparing for General Upper Secondary Education (2015); Preparatory Education for Vocational Training (2015)
S	Norway [SN]: Homework assistance programme (2010)	R	France [SN]: National action plan to support migrants (2017), including the "Welcome-refugees" information portal (2015)
S M	Portugal: Third Generation of the Education Territories of Priority Intervention Programme (TEIP, 2012)	S	Germany: National Action Plan on Integration (NAP-I, 2011)
S	United Kingdom (England): Pupil Premium (2011)	S	Portugal: National Strategy for the Integration of Roma Communities (ENICC, 2013-20)
		S	Slovenia: Series of projects to promote successful integration of Roma students in schools (2008-21)
		R	Slovenia: Special model to enhance the integration of refugee children and students in the Slovenian education system (2015)

1. [SN]: Policy information was only included as an additional policy of potential interest to other countries in the country snapshots (Chapter 7).

2. See Annex B for information on older policies reported in the previous cycle for which no further details were available.

Sources: EPO Survey 2016-17 and EPO Country Profiles published in 2017 for Austria, Belgium (Fl, Fr and Dg), Italy and Sweden (see the Reader’s Guide).

Expanding and enhancing educational opportunities

OECD countries have been working to expand access to educational programmes for young children to ensure greater equity in educational outcomes for all students. Since 2010, the governments in Germany and Italy have implemented new measures to offer educational and support options to raise outcomes for students in all levels of education. Germany has also implemented an initiative to further develop language programmes for children and monitor the effectiveness of similar projects across the country. Monitoring the quality of available opportunities provides valuable information that could result in their enhancement.

Policy focus

In 2013, Germany launched a research and development programme (2013-19) known as Education through Language and Writing (Bildung durch Sprache und Schrift, BiSS), a joint initiative of the federal level and the Länder. This initiative aims to scientifically evaluate and, based on the results of the evaluations, further develop the emergent literacy education of children and young people. The evaluations assess the effectiveness and efficiency of current measures introduced in the Länder for language and literacy promotion and language diagnostics from primary to lower secondary education. Over 600 educational institutions participate in BiSS at both elementary and secondary levels, including 200 kindergartens and 400 schools (BMBF, 2018; BMFSJ, 2018).

• Progress or impact: The Evaluation of selected BiSS Measures indicates that more than 40 networks of kindergartens and/or schools affiliated with the programme have participated in external evaluations. The results of the evaluations are used to further improve literacy education in the institutions. Kindergartens and schools are also instructed to independently check and optimise the quality of their practices through self-evaluations. Regular workshops for teachers and educators from the participating networks help to implement good practice in kindergartens and schools, so kindergartens and schools participating in the programme benefit from support for the planning, implementation and evaluation of their literacy education practices. This evaluation reported that between 2014 and 2016, at least four two-day workshops were held in the areas of concept development and self-evaluation (BiSS, 2017).

In Germany, reform measures by all Länder in the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder (Kultusministerkonferenz, KMK), as well as measures adopted by the federal government aim to: 1) expand full-day educational offers to extend educational and support options; 2) raise the educational level of disadvantaged students; and 3) improve school education, including reading and linguistic competences and the understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts (e.g. the recently developed Education in the Digital World strategy). Some related measures include the Education through Language and Writing programme (2013) to further develop linguistic education of children by evaluating the policies in place, the Educational Chains Initiative (2010) and the Alliance for Education and Training 2015-18 to place more disadvantaged youth into vocational education and training and apprenticeships.

• Progress or impact: So far, the reforms have had an overall positive impact. According to available evidence, 60% of schools in Germany offered all-day schooling programmes in 2016, and more than one-third of all students participated in them (Authoring Group Educational Reporting, 2016). This is an increase from 16% in 2002. Most programmes are non-mandatory and do not require attendance. Still, in 2014, a provision of EUR 260 million had been budgeted for the period through the end of 2017 to extend all-day schooling (EC, 2017b). Efforts have also been made to increase the participation rate of all students in school, which is similar to that of migrant and non-migrant students at preschool age and for those aged 16-30. As of 2016, the development of all-day school programmes and the creation of inclusive education systems are still among the core challenges for Germany. These aim to tackle increasing segregation based on socio-economic status, as non-native German-speaking students are finding themselves attending schools in which most of the students do not have German as their primary family language. National sources indicate that the population’s level of education has significantly improved in recent years, as more and more students are achieving general and vocational qualifications (BMBF, 2016). At the same time, in the KMK’s 2016 education monitoring (IQB-Bildungstrend), results showed negative trends in the competence levels of fourth graders in mathematics (Stanat et al., 2016). Another report also shows that the number of students who only reach a Hauptschulabschluss (lower secondary school qualification) or enter the labour market without vocational qualifications continues to be too high (Authoring Group Educational Reporting, 2016).

In Italy, Law 107/2015, also referred to as the Good School Reform (La Buona Scuola), is a comprehensive reform covering many aspects of the education system, with an overarching aim of improving overall educational quality (OECD, 2017e). Legislation implementing many aspects of the reform was enacted in April 2017. Examples of specific measures targeted directly at students include the introduction of integrated ECEC for children age 0-6, curricular revision for certain school subjects and a three-year National Plan for Digital Education which aims to improve digital skills across the system.

• Progress or impact: According to 2015 projections from the Italian Ministry of Finance, the school reform was predicted to have the “largest positive impact on GDP in the long term” (MEF, 2015 as referenced in OECD, 2017e). Further evidence shows that the 2015 reform has the potential to improve school outcomes (EC, 2016b).

Providing educational support and reinforcement for students from diverse backgrounds

Performance disparities can exist between students from diverse backgrounds, such as lower socio-economic status or ethnic background, as a result of a distribution of educational resources and practices that does not succeed in levelling the field to provide greater equity in opportunities to learn (OECD, 2016d).

PISA 2015 results on science performance show that, on average, 13% of the test result variation can be attributed to students’ socio-economic status. Students with an immigrant background are also twice as likely to score below proficiency Level 2 in science compared to students without an immigrant background, after taking their socio-economic status into account. This is especially important as almost one in four 15‑year-old students in OECD countries stated in the 2015 PISA study that they were either foreign-born or had at least one foreign-born parent (OECD, 2016d). Furthermore, taking into consideration the needs of and educational opportunities available to students who belong to minority or ethnic groups compared to their peers can result in higher levels of equity and quality in education systems.

OECD education systems are seeking more targeted solutions to boost the potential of students from different backgrounds, especially those faced with significant adversity (OECD, 2011a). For example, Belgium (Flemish and French Communities), Germany, Hungary and the United Kingdom (England) are promoting policies to support disadvantaged students. Policies in Finland, Germany and Slovenia have aimed to reinforce support for students with immigrant backgrounds, and in Italy and Slovenia, policies are targeting better education and living conditions for Roma students and their communities. Finally, Australia and New Zealand have implemented policies specifically targeting Indigenous students, although with different approaches.

In the same way, policies that promote academic achievement and resilience in education systems benefit all students. Efforts to ensure students’ achievement in schools, with a particular emphasis on fostering resilience (the ability to achieve a high performance despite socio-economic or cultural barriers) for disadvantaged students can help increase student performance overall and boost their potential (OECD, 2011a). In the case of immigrant students, it will enable them to make contributions to their host countries (OECD, 2016d).

Students with low socio-economic status

Students with low socio-economic status remain three times more likely to not attain the baseline level of proficiency in science in comparison to their more advantaged peers, according to PISA 2015 (OECD, 2016d). Several OECD countries have policies in place that aim to reduce the impact of socio-economic background on students’ education outcomes, such as in Belgium (Flemish and French Communities), Chile, Germany and the United Kingdom (England).

Policy focus

As part of the Parliamentary Act for primary and secondary education (2008) in the Flemish Community of Belgium, additional financial resources are provided to schools to compensate for socio-economic disadvantage. In fact, the Flemish school-financing system is designed to support equal access to educational opportunities for all students and compensate for differences in student backgrounds. To help schools meet the needs of students from diverse backgrounds, school operating grants are weighted for socio-economic status. This is intended to account for the influence of key differentiating variables: the mother’s educational level, foreign language spoken at home, the family’s financial capacity, and the student’s neighbourhood characteristics. Student socio-economic characteristics are also used in the calculation, and elementary schools and secondary schools receive a top-up of teaching hours based on school concentrations of such characteristics. Differential weighting recognises the adverse impact on student learning of specific student background characteristics. For elementary education, characteristic-based funding amounted to 14% of the overall budget in 2012 and it is being increased gradually to reach 15.5% by 2020. For secondary education, the share of the budget amounted to 10% in 2008-09 and it is gradually being increased to 11% by 2020 (Flemish Department of Education and Training, 2015). This additional funding may make it possible to run remedial classes, split classes, and release teachers for a range of pedagogical and support activities. In these ways, the Flemish authorities seek to balance choice and autonomy with equity.

• Progress or impact: PISA 2015 data show that larger-than-average gaps remain in performance between students of different socio-economic backgrounds, as well as between immigrant and non-immigrant students (OECD, 2016d). An OECD review of school resources in the Flemish Community found that, the system is well resourced, but to fully understand the impact of targeted funding, it would be necessary to have more empirical data available in the system on resource outputs and resource utilisation, as schools have autonomy to disburse the extra funding in different ways according to local needs. The review also proposed shifting more of the budget to lower levels, as evidence shows this provides a higher rate of return (Nusche et al., 2015). The Flemish Community has already begun to make some changes to funding structures in response to the review, such as investing more in areas of high need (for example integrating new immigrants and funding new school infrastructure in densely populated urban areas), as well as redistributing funds to lower education levels (OECD, 2017f).

Through the Preferential School Subsidy (Ley de Subvención Escolar Preferencial, SEP, 2008) in Chile, primary schools receive additional funding for enrolment of socio-economically disadvantaged students. These funds are in addition to the baseline funding that public and government-subsidised private schools receive for each enrolled student. In 2008, the introduction of the preferential education subsidy modified this scheme to make it more equity-oriented. It allocates a large share of expenditure on a per-student basis (topping up the flat-rate voucher) and provides an additional amount for schools that enrol a significant proportion of students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Acceptance of these funds is voluntary. Concretely, schools that receive the supplement have to sign an agreement, elaborate a plan for education improvement, set objectives and define measures to support students with learning difficulties. Schools are categorised as autonomous, emerging or recovering, based on criteria such as their results in the national standardised assessment of student performance (Sistema de Medición de Calidad de la Educación). Depending on their category, schools either design their own educational improvement plan, receive support from the Education Ministry to draft their progress plans or get external technical assistance. Struggling schools that fail to improve after receiving assistance risk losing their licence or their eligibility for the subsidy (OECD, 2013b).

• Progress or impact: SEP resulted in important changes in the Chilean school system. Although the programme is voluntary, around 85% of the 9 000 eligible schools participated in 2011. All municipal schools and about 66% of private subsidised schools are actively engaged. This high coverage has changed the relationship between schools and the Ministry of Education and has helped improve its regressive funding structure. Although some schools were reticent to accept the conditions imposed by the agreement, most schools have welcomed the new resources, as well as the clear pedagogical goals and diagnostic tools tailored to help meet them. Studies show positive effects on student performance. In 2015, SEP served 94% of all municipal schools (including 99% of those providing basic education) and 50% of private subsidised schools (including 75% of those providing basic education). It is not possible to convincingly estimate the effects on student learning in public schools, since participation in SEP is almost universal. However, research has found some positive effects of SEP on private subsidised schools, such as an increase in standardised student assessment scores on average and larger increases for schools with more significant enrolment of low-income students (OECD, 2013b; Santiago, 2017). In recent years, the SEP Law increased its resources by 20% for the education of the most vulnerable students of the system (defined as "priority students"). In addition, the preferential school subsidy was created for "preferential students". Schools that are in SEP and do not charge a co-payment receive it for each student who belongs to the poorest 80% of the country and is not "priority" (MINEDUC, 2015).

Since 2013, Education Alliances (Kultur macht stark - Bündnisse für Bildung) have supported out-of-school programmes in Germany for educationally disadvantaged children and teenagers. Starting in 2013, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) allocated annual funding of EUR 30 million for this programme, to be increased to EUR 50 million in the following four years. The Education Package (Bildungspaket) (by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2011) aims to give 2.5 million children from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to participate in activities such as school excursions, sports, and musical and cultural activities, to boost their motivation and sense of belonging.

• Progress or impact: A 2016 evaluation found overall positive results for the policy. By 2016, 11 500 measures had been taken, and 4 700 alliances had been funded across the country. The main target group of educationally disadvantaged children and teenagers benefitted from at least 90% of the measures taken. Between 2013 and 2016, 223 000 children and teenagers as well as 28 000 relatives benefitted from out-of-school programmes. The main geographical focus is on regions with a high percentage of the main target group. Success factors identified include easy access to the programmes for children and teenagers, as well as content tailored to conditions on the ground. Other factors are the possibility to gain social and cultural awareness and skills: 90% of the alliances include volunteers. An important target is also the establishment of long-term co-operation. Of the co-ordinators interviewed, 65% stated they intended to reapply for funding. In addition, 90% of the alliances anticipated continuing the co‑operation independently of the federal programme (Prognos, 2016). The programme will be extended from 2018 to 2022, and interested local partners can begin applying for 2018 funding at the end of 2017 (BMBF, 2017).

The Pupil Premium programme (2011) in England (United Kingdom) aims to reduce inequities between students by providing additional school funding to support disadvantaged students and close attainment gaps. The Pupil Premium is available to students who have received free school meals at any point in the last six years. Schools decide how to use this funding. The Pupil Premium Programme (worth almost GBP 2.5 billion in each year from 2014/15 to 2017/18) increased student funding from GBP 488 per pupil in 2011/12, to GBP 1 320 per primary pupil and GBP 935 per secondary pupil in 2014/15. In comparison, funding for the programme in 2013/14 was GBP 1.875 billion (GBP 900 per disadvantaged student). In 2014/15, the government introduced different Pupil Premium rates for primary and secondary pupils. In addition, while eligible looked-after children previously qualified for the same Pupil Premium amount as deprived children (GBP 900 prior to 2014). Under “Pupil Premium Plus”, introduced in 2014/15, current and previously looked-after children each qualify for funding of GBP 1 900 for the period 2014/15 to 2017/18. This amount will increase to GBP 2 300 as of April 2018. The eligibility criteria for the Service Premium have been broadened since 2011/12, with the rate has increased from GBP 200 to GBP 300.

• Progress or impact: Between 2015 and 2017, the UK Government and various national institutions, including the Education Policy Institute (EPI) and the Social Mobility Commission (SMC), reported on the outcomes of the Pupil Premium. In their most recent reports, both published in 2017, EPI indicated there had been some success in closing the gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students across the United Kingdom. The report submitted by the SMC suggested that local authorities develop better practices and strategies to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children (Foster and Long, 2017). In 2016, the SMC reported that although evidence suggested that the policy had had a positive effect on closing the attainment gap between disadvantaged students and their peers, this “is not definitive, because it cannot definitely say what would have happened to attainment had it not been introduced” (SMC, 2016). Other reports were released by the National Audit Office and the Public Account Committee (2015), the Education Policy Institute and Social Mobility Commission (2016), and Sutton Trust (2017) (Foster and Long, 2017).

Students with immigrant or Roma backgrounds

As noted, in recent years, education systems in OECD countries have become more diverse in terms of the backgrounds of students they serve. This increased diversity is also related to the growing number of immigrant students enrolling in their schools.

Immigration does not touch all OECD countries in the same way, and their approaches to providing support for immigrant students vary. However, policies in Finland, Germany and Slovenia all aim to integrate students with immigrant backgrounds into mainstream education and training and at the level of higher education. The higher education system also aims to provide support to newly arrived students (Ministry of Education and Culture [Finland], 2017). In Germany, an action plan for the integration of immigrants into education and training has been modified to ensure that policies are effective and efficient. In 2016, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder (Kultusministerkonferenz, KMK) passed a Declaration on the Integration of Young Refugees through Education. In Italy, Portugal and Slovenia, policies currently target improved support of Roma communities and better integration of Roma students into schools.

Policy focus

In 2015, Finland implemented the National Core Curriculum for Instruction Preparing for Basic Education to respond to the need to better integrate immigrant students. It outlines key strategic areas in education, including securing equal opportunity in education and culture and promoting participation and inclusion. At least 32 500 refugees arrived in Finland in 2015. By the end of that year, almost 3 500 students were attending preparatory courses for basic education. To respond to the needs of this new refugee population, the government established 50 new groups of preparatory studies for basic education in municipalities. In 2015, at least 200 immigrant students were preparing for upper secondary education. Students have access to courses in either Finnish or Swedish, or they can attend classes in their native language. Students aged 6-10 receive at least 900 hours of instruction, and older students are eligible to receive at least 1 000 hours. However, no national syllabus has been designed for the curriculum. Students who are able to keep up with the instruction are eligible to transfer to basic education regardless of whether they have completed the required hours (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016). In 2015, the government also implemented the National Core Curriculum for Instruction Preparing for Basic Education, the National Core Curriculum for Instruction Preparing for General Upper Secondary Education, and Preparatory Education for Vocational Training. These three policies include measures for students from immigrant backgrounds originally included in the National Core Curriculum for Instruction Preparing Immigrants for Basic Education (2009), which has been discontinued.

• Progress or impact: As of 2016, around 12% of immigrant students had classes in Finnish or Swedish as a second language, while 25% did not have separate language classes. The 2016 report by the working group of the Ministry of Education and Culture on immigrant issues states that it is important to their language development to grant separate Finnish or Swedish language classes as well as to aid the development of immigrant students’ mother tongues. In fact, in 2014, more than 16 000 students participated in courses taught in their own mother language, resulting in a total of 53 different languages being taught (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016).

Germany’s National Action Plan on Integration (NAP-I, 2011, previously the National Integration Plan [2007]) was created to improve equity and boost participation and success of students of migrant background. It was developed in collaboration with civil society stakeholders, including immigrant organisations (Federal Government, 2012). One of the main aspects was the integration of students with a migrant background into the education system and the labour market. Education also encompasses initial training and continuous training, which also forms the main part of national monitoring (BMBF, 2013). National sources indicate that the primary purpose of this transformation was to ensure, by means of measurable policies, that the integration of immigrant students in the Länder’s education systems was irreversible (Federal Government, 2012).

• Progress or impact: As of 2013, the number of adolescents with a migrant background who leave school without a diploma was decreasing, and the number of those who leave school with a higher-education entrance diploma was increasing (BMBF, 2013). However, by 2016, the rate of early school leaving among students with a migrant background (23.1%) was almost three times higher than that of their native-born peers (8.2%) (EC, 2017c). Furthermore, access to education for children and adolescents without resident status has been widened by easing legislation (BMBF, 2013). The action plan was subject to constant monitoring. According to national information, the departments in charge of the 11 dialogue fora were asked to submit an evaluation report by June 2016 on the state of implementation of the measures. The report on the Dialogue Forum 2 "Education, Training, Further Education" was prepared by the BMBF. The Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration observed that the evaluation focused solely on integration into the education systems and labour market and should also measure social and cultural integration (SVR, 2017). According to national information, the NAP-I was only valid for one legislation period (2012 to 2016), although it was initially designed to be a process surpassing legislative periods, with regular examinations of the set targets. Partially due to the increase in the number of refugees arriving in Germany, the NAP-I had no successor in the following legislative period. However, the action plan is likely to be picked up again in coming legislation.

Portugal’s National Strategy for the Integration of Roma Communities (Estratégia Nacional para a Integração das Comunidades Ciganas, ENICC, 2013-20) aims to ensure access of children from Roma communities to pre-primary education, as well as to increase their completion of compulsory education and access to tertiary education. In 2013, the Ministry of Education created a database of students from itinerant families to monitor school attendance and help ensure completion of compulsory education. The strategy has been implemented following collaboration between the High Commissioner for Migration (Alto Comissariado para as Migrações, ACM), the Ministry of Education, Civil Society organisations, Roma communities and experts. An Advisory Group for Roma Communities was created to monitor this Strategy.

• Progress or impact: As ENICC national co-ordinator, the ACM produced a report to evaluate implementation of this plan in 2013-14. The strategy’s actions revolve around five axes. The report found that, during the period analysed, the overall execution rate of actions associated with ENICC was 81%, including 59% for transversal initiatives, 23% for education, 10% for employment and training, 6% for housing and less than 1% for the health axis. The report identified budgetary and legal issues, including concerns about the collection of specific information on Roma communities and the need to involve a wide range of public and private actors in order to achieve the various priorities in each axis. This led the ACM, to create the "FAPE - ENICC Support Fund" which will, through a line of project financing, highlight the priorities set out in the plan. The first year of implementation of the FAPE in 2015 aimed to improve the success of some of the priorities in 2013-14 (High Commissioner for Migration and Government of Portugal, 2014).

In 2008, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports in Slovenia, with the help of the European Structural Funds, implemented the Project for the Successful Integration of Roma Students in Schools (2008-15). It aimed to share national best practices of inclusive teaching among kindergartens and schools and teachers in areas with little or no such experience. One of the most important measures was providing a Roma assistant in Roma settlements and schools attended by Roma pupils. Following promising results of this policy, the government later implemented a series of projects to expand support to Roma communities. The project on Raising the Social and Cultural Capital in Areas Inhabited by Members of the Roma Community (2011-13) aimed to work with Roma children, youth and parents in Roma settlements to increase the participation and success of Roma children in education. More recently, the Together for Knowledge (2016-21) programme aims to supply educational support in preschools for Roma communities, through the inclusion of Roma parents in educational activities, as well as coaching sessions and after-school activities for children (Council of Europe, 2017).

• Progress or impact: The Project for the Successful Integration of Roma Students in Schools was identified by the Council of Europe as a demonstrated good practice (observing the Municipality of Murska Sobota). As reported by the Roma Union, results achieved by the end of 2010 included higher attendance of Roma children in educational institutions, improved co-operation between Roma parents and educational institutions, increased awareness among Roma of the importance of learning and education, and more successful co‑operation between teaching assistants, teachers and Roma parents in the education of Roma children (Council of Europe, 2011). The Council of Europe also identified the importance of the project on Raising the Social and Cultural Capital in Areas Inhabited by Members of the Roma Community (2011-13), particularly its contributions to the design of innovative and creative educational practices in Roma communities (Council of Europe, 2017).

In 2015, Slovenia implemented a special model to enhance the integration of refugee children and students in the Slovenian education system. The main objective is to assure adequate professional support for the integration of children and students (those with international protection and those seeking international protection) into their new linguistic and cultural environment, by enhancing activities in social, linguistic and cultural domains. This policy was developed to advise kindergartens and schools on application of a model providing introductory or preparatory classes (pripravljalnica) before children enter school and continuing or advanced classes (nadaljevalnica) after that. The continuing classes take place during the school year, and children have an individual programme or plan of activities, receive additional learning support for lessons in Slovenian and may also join remedial and supplementary classes, morning care and after-school classes. Students are integrated into mainstream classes with their peers. The state also funds supplementary language lessons at upper secondary and university level, where a special protocol has been developed to facilitate the integration of non-documented students.

• Progress or impact: According to Slovenia’s survey responses, the policy, more widely introduced in 2016, has not yet been comprehensively evaluated. Nevertheless, according to national sources, there are individual cases that demonstrate successful integration of children and young people from immigrant backgrounds into the Slovenian educational system by the achieved standards of knowledge. One of the important achievements of the process is the establishment of good co-operation and links between the various actors to ensure the protection of children’s rights and an inclusive school environment.

Indigenous students

Across OECD countries, many initiatives have been maintained or implemented since 2008 to improve the educational outcomes of Indigenous students. In Australia, where Indigenous peoples represented 3% of the total population in 2014, a recently implemented policy reinforces support for Indigenous students attending university (OECD, 2017g). In New Zealand, efforts at the local and national levels have been made since the 1980s to provide Māori-medium education to children from preschool through tertiary education. In 2013, Indigenous peoples represented 15.6% of the total population in New Zealand (OECD, 2017g).

Policy focus

Since 2007, the National Indigenous Reform Agreement, also known as Close the Gap, in Queensland (Australia) has aimed to reduce the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students achieving Year 12 Certification (Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017). Measures were taken at the central, regional and local level. The central office’s Department of Education provided each region with disaggregated data to quantify the number of Indigenous students needed to fill the gap. This helped regions to visualise the objectives. Other measures included raising awareness of the importance of change among school leaders and regional staff, through workshops and leadership sessions. In addition, Queensland’s educational regions provided support to schools (for example, by appointing coaches for the Queensland Certificate of Education), and schools set up multidisciplinary case-management teams to aid students (Button et al., 2016).

• Progress or impact: The government reports that between 2006 and 2015, the proportion of Indigenous 20‑24 year-olds with Year 12 or equivalent attainment increased from 45.4% to 61.5%. Improvements were also identified in the retention rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in high school in Queensland. In 2015, almost 60% of Indigenous students stayed in school until Year 12. Improvements were also identified for preschool enrolment, which had increased to 87% for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children by 2015 (Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017). The number of Indigenous students with a Year 12 Certification increased from 42.1% in 2008 to 97% by 2016 (QCAA, 2017). The success of the programme to reduce the gap can be attributed to the alignment across schools, regional offices and central office; a clear line of sight to individual schools and students; and intensive case management (Button et al., 2016).

In New Zealand, the Māori-medium education sector was established in the 1980s by Māori whānau (families) and communities to help preserve Te reo Māori, an official language of New Zealand, and Māori culture. Māori-medium education is provided in and through the Māori language 51-100% of the time. It is available from early childhood education in kōhanga reo through to tertiary level in wānanga.

• Progress or impact: National sources report that as of 2017, there were 19 438 students enrolled in Māori-medium education, representing 2.4% of the total school population. This number was an increase of 0.1 percentage points over the previous year. Of the students who were involved in Māori-medium education, 97.7% identified as Māori, and 57.6% attended a school where all students were enrolled in Māori medium. These students were enrolled in one of the 277 schools affiliated with the programme in 2017. Students enrolled in Māori-medium education who successfully complete upper secondary school gain university entrance equal to or in higher proportions than the general school population. Students in Māori-medium education also have strong National Certificate of Educational Attainment (NCEA) achievement. In 2016, 79.2% of school leavers from Māori medium left with NCEA level 2 or above. This is on par with all students in the total school population (80.3% of these school leavers left with NCEA level 2 in 2016), unlike Māori students in English medium who typically achieve 15-20 percentage points lower (66.1% of these school leavers left with NCEA level 2 in 2016). Only 5.7% of all Māori secondary students participated in wharekura, or Māori-medium secondary schooling in 2017. Māori medium also has higher retention rates of senior secondary students. In 2016, 77.6% of Māori school leavers from Māori medium stayed in school until their 17th birthday, compared to 70.9% of Māori school leavers nationally. Research shows that retention at senior secondary school is an important factor towards educational achievement and a range of other positive life outcomes.

Students with special education needs

Students with special education needs may require schools and teachers to adapt their classroom strategies by providing different resources or adjusting their syllabus or learning objectives. Modifications to teaching strategies may be the result of students’ physical, behavioural, intellectual, emotional and social incapacities (UNESCO UIS, 2013). Policies that take these disadvantages into account and facilitate their learning can improve their educational opportunities and outcomes and produce more inclusive learning environments.

Some OECD countries have been making adjustments to their educational systems to accommodate more students with special education needs. The Australian Government has been targeting access to tertiary education and the labour market, while policies in Belgium (Flemish and French Communities), Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia focus on improving the inclusion of students with special education needs in compulsory education.

Policy focus

The Australian Government’s National Disability Coordination Officer (NDCO, 2008) Programme assists people with disability to access and participate in tertiary education and subsequent employment, through a national network of NDCOs (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2017). In response to a 2011 evaluation, the programme was reformed to take a more strategic approach to service provision, rather than focusing on individualised services. A travel and accommodation subsidy was also introduced for NDCOs operating in non-metropolitan areas.

• Progress or impact: An evaluation found that the programme was consistent with government policy with respect to people with disability and addressed critical needs that warrant ongoing support. A second evaluation, published in 2017, examined the policy rationale for the programme and its operation to date, and made recommendations for the future of the programme (including its appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and intersection with other government policies and programmes). The overall NDCO objectives were considered to be fulfilled in 2013 to 2016 in terms of stronger engagement between education and employment stakeholders and service providers, as well as better transitions for people with disability from school/community to tertiary education and subsequent employment. While the improvement in educational and employment outcomes since 2013 cannot be ascribed directly to the programme, local stakeholders assert that the programme remained the best way to facilitate the activities (ACIL Allen Consulting, 2017).

After the Flemish Parliament ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, the Flemish Community of Belgium legally reinforced the right of students with special educational needs to be enrolled in mainstream education, through the passing of the M-Decree in 2014. Its measures include: 1) updating the definition categories for students with special educational needs, including a category for children with autism; 2) requiring mainstream schools to make reasonable adjustments (such as providing specialist equipment and support staff to accommodate students with special education needs in the mainstream system) and requiring mainstream schools to only refer a student to special education once all such “reasonable adaptations” have been tried; and 3) providing the right to appeal to a Student Rights Commission (Commissie inzake leerlingenrechten) to parents of a child with special educational needs who disagree with a school’s refusal to enrol their child. This commission, created by the Parliamentary Act of 2002 on Equal Educational Opportunities, is comprised of experts in equality and education law. In 2017, the government reached an agreement regarding the allocation of EUR 103 million for updating classrooms and training teachers for special needs students (EC, 2017c).

• Progress or impact: The measures imposed in the M-Decree were implemented in 2015-16. National sources indicate that there is already a noticeable decrease in the number of primary students in special education in the first school year under the new measure (Vlaanderen, 2017).

In 2017, Estonia implemented amendments to the Preschool Childcare Institutions Act and the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act. These policies now also include a focus on the inclusion and state support of municipalities to create better educational opportunities for children with special needs in kindergartens and schools.

• Progress or impact: National data indicates that, in 2012, access to support systems in preschool childcare institutions (including speech therapy and special education therapists) was made available to almost 14% of children attending preschool childcare institutions. The same data also revealed that nearly 11% of children attending preschool childcare institutions in 2012 had special needs. At that time, local governments and preschool childcare institutions were also using the special education services provided by regional counselling centres that receive state support (speech therapists, special education teachers, psychological and social-pedagogical counselling) (Republic of Estonia Ministry of Education and Research, 2014).

Latvia’s Education Development Guidelines 2014‑20 provide an approach to the improvement of the quality of education and include various initiatives that have been launched for the promotion of the inclusion of students with special needs (2011). In 2003, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted new regulations creating special needs education development centres. The aim was to convert the best performing special needs schools into centres of expertise for mainstream schools integrating special needs students. In 2018, there are 12 special education institutions with the status of special education development centre. The aim of these centres is to provide methodological and consultative support for children and students with special needs who are integrated in preschool education institutions and mainstream schools. The regulations set the following targets for the main outputs of each development centre: 1) ensure pedagogical and methodological support to at least 50 teachers from the region per year; 2) provide consultation to at least 50 students with special needs (or their legal representatives) per year; and 3) organise at least two informative events per year on inclusive education and ensure that highly qualified staff is involved in consultations and information events (EC, 2016c). Also, with the support of the European Regional Development Fund, Latvia modernised the infrastructure of education institutions for all educational tracks, including adjusting premises for those with functional disorders. All 59 special education schools were modernised and adjusted as part of these efforts.

• Progress or impact: National sources indicate that Latvia offers two trends in special education, depending on the child’s condition and abilities: 1) special education institutions for children with severe mental and physical disabilities; or 2) within mainstream schools, in either special education classes or special education programmes in regular classes (OECD, 2016e). In 2015/16, 51% of students with special needs were in mainstream schools (in both general education and special education classes). In 2015, Latvia was commended by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for its ongoing dedication to ensuring the rights of people with disabilities (OHCHR, 2017). In particular, the Latvian Government was recognised for its efforts to provide inclusive education to students with special education needs.

The Placement of Children with Special Needs Act (2013) in Slovenia applies to: 1) children who are blind and partially sighted, deaf and hard of hearing; 2) children with speech, language and movement impairments, chronic diseases, deficiencies in individual fields of learning; and 3) children with mental development and behavioural disorders. With support from the European Social Fund, the Ministry initiated a set of projects to support implementation of the Act. These include: 1) the Network of Professional Institutions for Support to Children with Special Needs and their Families, which aims to create contact points of professional (special pedagogical) support for parents and professional staff in schools (EUR 4 million for the period of 2017-20, with an additional EUR 1.8 million earmarked for professional training); 2) enhancing a comprehensive approach in working with children with emotional and behavioural disorders to support development of new programmes and adapting or upgrading existing methods and forms of work in special educational institutions (EUR 2.8 million between 2017-19; and 3) enhancing social inclusion of SEN children and youth in the local environment, aiming to develop modular and other forms of education and training, targeting in particular children and youth who are completing or leaving formal education (EUR 2.8 million over the course of 2017-22). At the higher-education level, the Student Regulation Act (2017) defines students with special needs, students with special status and their rights.

• Progress or impact: A child qualifies for placement in specific educational settings after undergoing relevant activities co-ordinated by the Special Education Needs Guidance Commission in Slovenia. In the 2014/15 school year, there were 117 461 children with special educational needs in primary education in Slovenia and 55 362 in lower secondary education. Almost all of these students were enrolled in mainstream education with their non-disabled peers for at least 80% of the time (EASIE, 2018). At the upper secondary level, final state (matura) exams were made more inclusive in 2015, as a result of legislation guaranteeing special conditions for children with autistic spectrum disorders and visual impairments (EC, 2015).

Engaging with families and communities to improve learning outcomes

Developing connections with the community beyond the normal barriers of the learning environment should include parents, families and communities (OECD, 2015a). Engaging families and communities in the services and programmes offered by schools and other learning environments exposes children to the expertise, knowledge partners, and synergies that come from working in partnership with others.

Various approaches have been taken by at least two OECD countries to engage families and communities in educational systems. In Canada (Nova Scotia), designating schools as service providers to engage and support families and children is seen a way to help prevent youth and their families from becoming at-risk. In New Zealand, increased community engagement is a strategy for increased accountability for Pasifika students’ success.

Policy focus

The SchoolsPlus programme, launched in 2008 in Nova Scotia (Canada), is an interagency approach to support children and families by appointing the school as the centre of service delivery. The programme’s core focus continues to be the creation of “communities of care” to help students foster resilience and prevent more children, youth and families from becoming at-risk. Ultimately, the programme aims to reach and support the 5-10% of children and youth in Nova Scotia who are at risk of marginalisation. The policy has expanded every year, with sites in all eight school boards. Each school board now has a SchoolsPlus facilitator and Community Outreach Workers who act as the liaison between the school and the community, and each board has established a SchoolsPlus Advisory Committee, which identifies opportunities to enhance and expand the array of services and programmes for children, youth and their families.

• Progress or impact: A 2013 report highlighted that the SchoolsPlus programme had achieved provincial coverage, after establishing 95 sites in all eight school boards. Although the service provided by the programme had resulted in an increase in interdepartmental service co-operation and the introduction of mental health services, the report suggested that a “mid-term correction” should be made to ensure that the policy achieves its ultimate goal. However, the report states that the programme has been more successful at “co‑ordinating existing public social services” than achieving its original mission (Bennett, 2013).

Between 2013 and 2017, the Pasifika Education Plan in New Zealand sought to personalise all the work of the Ministry of Education and Education Partner Agencies to Pasifika learners. The plan, set for an initial five years, aims to increase accountability for Pasifika students’ success by addressing underperformance and making improvements in practice, through increased use of achievement information as part of more effective community engagement. Progress is monitored annually.

• Progress or impact: There has been a significant increase in the number of Pasifika children and students who are participating, engaging and achieving well in education since the Plan’s implementation. The national data shows 1.1% more new entrant students in early childhood education in 2016 (7 467 students) than in 2015. Also, in 2016, the proportion of Pasifika children who participated in ECEC prior to starting school rose to 92.9%, a 1.1% increase from the year before. More students are also achieving key secondary school qualifications. In 2016, Pasifika students in compulsory education Years 1-8 achieved the National Standard for reading (66%), mathematics (62.7%) and writing (60.5%). Also in 2016, the proportion of Pasifika 18-year-olds who attained NCEA Level 2 or above was 78.7%, compared to 77.6% the year before. More students are also enrolling in tertiary education. The number of domestic Pasifika students studying at degree level or higher rose from 29 800 in 2008 to 34 800 in 2014 (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2017). Despite these positive increases, responses to the EPO Survey 2016-17 indicate that the pace of progress could be faster for some Pasifika students. For example, Pasifika students are achieving the key secondary school qualification, NCEA Level 2, at 5.7 percentage points lower than the national average.

Regional intervention

Achieving equity and quality in education systems also requires reducing performance gaps between territories or regions within a country, a priority identified for some OECD education systems, including Portugal and Chile (see Chapter 2). Some OECD countries have large educational variations between different regions (OECD, 2016f). In the majority of OECD countries, the regional gap in terms of secondary attainment between the highest and lowest proportions of the workforce had decreased to below 10% by 2014 (OECD, 2015e; OECD, 2016g). Yet, in some OECD countries, the gap has begun to grow as higher-performing regions have been able to increase the number of highly educated individuals. As of 2014, seven OECD countries recorded regional differences of over 20% (OECD, 2016f).

Territorial intervention in Portugal serves as a mechanism to reduce early school-leaving and contribute to educational success for students from all regions of the country. In Chile, a recent policy has created new delivery points for the distribution of education services and to strengthen the quality of public education.

Policy focus

Portugal has developed one of the most prominent and stable educational policies covering territorial intervention among OECD countries. Originally designed in 1996, with further editions in 2006 and 2012, the Third generation of the Education Territories of Priority Intervention Programme (TEIP3, 2012) aims to promote educational success and reduce early school leaving rates within geographical areas in the country with higher-than-average socially disadvantaged populations. While its main principles, goals and methodologies have remained the same since the first edition, the scope of the recent generation of the policy has expanded slightly. It has a greater emphasis on preventing early leaving and improving learning quality, which is deeply connected to the change of the teaching and learning processes. Moreover, since the 2015/16 school year, schools have been asked to design and implement multi-annual improvement plans to strengthen the ability of schools to develop strategic and sustainable actions within the scope of three school years.

• Progress or impact: Between 2012 and 2016, the percentage of Portuguese school clusters (schools grouped under centralised leadership) covered by TEIP increased from 1% to 17% overall, or 137 school clusters, including approximately 16% of students from primary to secondary level. School clusters evaluate progress annually through a formative first semester report and a final report. Cluster reports feed into the programme’s evaluation of results at the national level (EC School Education Gateway, 2017). A recent synthesis of results suggests that dropout has reduced and results have improved in TEIP schools, but gaps remain between TEIP and non-TEIP schools (Dias, 2014). A fourth generation of the programme, currently in preparation, will be informed by analysis from the OECD School Resources Review project.

References

ACIL Allen Consulting (2017), National Disability Coordination Officer Program: Evaluation, Report to Department of Education and Training, ACIL Allen Consulting, https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/ndco_evaluation_final_report.pdf.

Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations (2016), National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education - 2016 and 2017, www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/national-partnership/2016_2017_universal_access_NP.pdf.

Australian Government Department of Education and Training (2017), “National Disability Coordination Officer Program”, www.education.gov.au/national-disability-coordination-officer-programme#how-ndcos-can-help (accessed 18 December 2017).

Australian Government Department of Education and Training (2015), National Report: National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education–2015, https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/20170113_ua_national_report_2015_-_endorsed_and_web_accessible.pdf.

Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2017), Closing the Gap: The Prime Minister’s Report 2017, www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Feb/MPClGap/Attachments/Report.pdf.

Authoring Group Educational Reporting (ed.) (2016), Education in Germany 2016: An indicator-based report including an analysis of education and migration, commissioned by the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany (KMK) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), W. Bertelsmann Verlag, Bielefeld, www.bmbf.de/files/6001820e_kf-englisch_barrierefrei.pdf.

Baisch, B. et al. (2017), “Flüchtlingskinder in Kindertagesbetreuung: Ergebnisse der DJI -Kita-Befragung „Flüchtlingskinder“ zu Rahmenbedingungen und Praxis im Frühjahr 2016” [“Refugee Children in daycare: Results of the DJI Kindergarten Survey ‘Refugee children’ on Framework and Practices, spring 2016], Deutsches Jugendinstitut, Munich, www.dji.de/fileadmin/user_upload/bibs2017/Fluechtlingskinder_in_Kindertagesbetreuung.pdf.

Bennett, P.W. (2013), Reclaiming at-Risk Children and Youth: A Review of Nova Scotia’s SchoolsPlus (ISD) Initiative, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Halifax, http://aims.wpengine.com/site/media/aims/SchoolsPlus%20June%202013.pdf.

BiSS (Bildung durch Sprache und Schrift) (2017), “Evaluation ausgewählter BiSS-Maßnahmen” [Evaluation of selected BiSS measurements], BiSS website, www.biss-sprachbildung.de/biss.html?seite=30 (accessed 15 December 2017).

BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) [Federal Ministry of Education and Research] (2018), “BiSS - Bildung durch Sprache und Schrift” [“BiSS - Education through Language and Writing”], www.bmbf.de/de/biss-bildung-durch-sprache-und-schrift-3729.html (accessed 14 March 2018).

BMBF (2017), “Kultur macht stark" wird fortgesetzt: Jury schlägt neue Programmpartner vor” [“Culture makes you strong” is going to be continued: The jury proposes new programme partners], www.buendnisse-fuer-bildung.de/ (accessed 15 December 2017).

BMBF (2016), “Bildung in Deutschland 2016” [Education in Germany 2016], www.bmbf.de/de/bildung-in-deutschland-2016-3010.html (accessed 20 December 2017).

BMBF (2013), “Nationaler Aktionsplan Integration: Bilanz der Bundesmaßnahmen zum Dialogforum„Bildung, Ausbildung, Weiterbildung” [National Action Plan on Integration: Balance sheet of the federal measures for the dialogue forum “Education, Training, Further education”], BMBF, Berlin, www.bmbf.de/pub/Nationaler_Aktionsplan_Integration.pdf.

BMFSJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) [Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth] (2018), “Bund-Länder-Initiative „Bildung durch Sprache und Schrift“ (BiSS)” [Bund-Länder-Initiative “Education through Language and Writing” (BiSS)], www.fruehe-chancen.de/qualitaet/aktuelle-bundesprogramme/bildung-durch-sprache-und-schrift/.

BMFSJ (2015), “Fünfter Bericht zur Evaluation des Kinderförderungsgesetzes (KiföG-Bericht 2015)” [Fifth Report on the Evaluation of the children’s support law], www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/service/publikationen/fuenfter-bericht-zur-evaluation-des-kinderfoerderungsgesetzes--kifoeg-bericht-2015-/86370?view=DEFAULT.

Burchinal, M., M. Zaslow and L. Tarullo (2016), “Quality, thresholds, features and dosage in early care and education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 81/2, pp. 7-26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mono.12248.

Button S. et al. (2016), “Whatever it takes: Year 12 Certification in Queensland”, Australian Educational Leader, Vol. 38/4, Australian Council for Educational Leaders, Surry Hills, pp. 28-32.

Cappella, E., J. Aber and H. Kim (2016), Teaching Beyond Achievement Tests: Perspectives From Developmental and Education Science, American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_4.

Council of Europe (2017), “Fourth Report submitted by Slovenia pursuant to Article 25, paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,” National Minorities (FCNM), https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806d3fbc (accessed 26 April 2018).

Council of Europe (2011), “Slovenia – Successful Integration of Roma Children into Education,” Good Practices and Policies, http://goodpracticeroma.ppa.coe.int/en/pdf/20 (4 April 2018).

DCYA (Department of Children and Youth Affairs) (2014), CEC and ASCC Childcare Schemes: Frequently Asked Questions, Government of Ireland, Dublin, www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/ecce-scheme/20140903CECandASCCFAQs.pdf.

DEPP (Direction de l'évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance) [Department of Evaluation, Foresight and Performance] (2014), “Près d’un enfant sur huit est scolarisé à deux ans”, Ministère de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, No. 20, Paris, http://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/2014/55/2/DEPP_NI_2014_20_Pres_un_enfant_sur_huit_scolarise_a_deux_ans_329552.pdf.

Destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt) [Federal Statistical Office] (2016), “Statistiken der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe. Kinder und tätige Personen in Tageseinrichtungen und in öffentlich geförderter Kindertagespflege am 01.03.2016” [Statistics of Child and Youth Welfare.Children and Active Persons in Day Care Facilities and in Public Financed Day Care on 01.03.2016], Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Soziales/KinderJugendhilfe/TageseinrichtungenKindertagespflege5225402167004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

Dias, M. (2014), “Education, Development and Social Inclusion in Portugal: Policies, Processes and Results”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.116, pp. 1864-1868, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2014.01.485.

EASIE (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education) (2018), Slovenia Data: 2014/2015 Data, EASIE, Brussels, www.european-agency.org/data/slovenia/datatable-overview (accessed 21 March 2018).

EC (European Commission) (2017a), Education and Training Monitor 2017: Portugal, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2017-pt_en.pdf.

EC (2017b), Education and Training Monitor 2017: Germany, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2016-de_en.pdf.

EC (2017c), Education and Training Monitor 2017, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, www.erasmusplus.sk/uploads/publikacie/monitor2017_en_1119.pdf.

EC (2016a), Education and Training Monitor 2016 Hungary, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2016-de_en.pdf.

EC (2016b), Education and Training Monitor 2016: Italy, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2017-it_en.pdf.

EC (2016c), “Converting best-performing special education institutions into centres of excellence”. Education and Training website, https://ec.europa.eu/education/compendium/converting-best-performing-special-education-institutions-centres-excellence_en (accessed 26 February 2018).

EC (2015), Education and Training Monitor 2015 Slovenia, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/tools/docs/2015/monitor2015-slovenia_en.pdf.

EC School Education Gateway (2017), TEIP - Programme for Priority Intervention Educational Areas, School Education Gateway website, www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/resources/toolkitsforschools/detail.cfm?n=434 (accessed 15 December 2017).

Eurostat (2017), “Early leavers from education and training by sex and labour status”, Eurostat (database), http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=edat_lfse_14&lang=en (accessed 15 December 2015).

Enseignement en Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles (2016), “Indicateurs de l’enseignement 2016”, Enseignement website, www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=28017&navi=4484 (accessed 26 February 2018).

Enseignement en Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles (2014), “Décolâge!”- Lettre d’information: juin 2014”, enseignement.be website, www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=26529&navi=3368 (accessed 15 December 2015).

Federal Government (Germany) [Die Bundesregierung] (2012), National Action Plan on Integration: Abridged press version, Federal Government, Berlin, www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/IB/2012-01-31-nap-kurzfassung-presse-englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

Flemish Department of Education and Training (2015), OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report of Belgium/Flemish Community (State of play December 2014), Flemish Department of Education and Training, Brussels, www.oecd.org/edu/Country%20Background%20Report_Belgium_Flemish%20Community_FINAL%20with%20stat_for%20OECD%20website_REV%20DN.pdf.

Foster, D. and R. Long (2017), The Pupil Premium, Briefing Paper No. 6700, House of Commons Library, London, http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06700/SN06700.pdf.

FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) (2016), Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) Roma – Selected findings, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/eumidis-ii-roma-selected-findings.

High Commissioner for Migration and Government of Portugal (2014), “Estratégia Nacional para a Integração das Comunidades Ciganas: Relatório de execução 2013-2014” [National Strategy for the Integration of Roma Communities: Implementation Report 2013-2014], www.acm.gov.pt/documents/10181/52642/relat%C3%B3rio2013-2014.pdf/50c0fba6-3221-4c61-8e30-3b087919738f (accessed 22 March 2018).

Kerckhoff, A.C. (2000), “Transition from School to Work in Comparative Perspective”, in Handbook of the Sociology of Education, Springer, United States, pp. 453-474, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36424-2_21.

LeTendre, G.K., B.K. Hofer and H. Shimizu (2003), “What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 40/1, pp. 43-89, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312040001043.

Melhuish, E. et al. (2015), A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) upon child development. WP4.1 Curriculum and quality analysis impact review, CARE (Curriculum and Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood Education and Care), http://ecec-care.org/fileadmin/careproject/Publications/reports/CARE_WP4_D4__1_review_of_effects_of_ecec.pdf.

MINEDUC (Ministerio de Educación) (Chile) (2015), De inclusión escolar que regula la admisión de los y las estudiantes, elimina el financiamiento compartido y prohíbe el lucro en establecimientos educacionales que reciben aportes del estado (Ley 20845) [Of school inclusión that regulates the admission of students, eliminates shared financing and forbids profit-making in education institutions receiving public funds (Law 20845)], Government of Chile, Santiago, https://www.leychile.cl/N?i=1078172&f=2017-12-28&p=.

Ministère de l’Éducation nationale (France) (2018), “L'éducation prioritaire - État des lieux”, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale website, http://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/2018/68/4/depp-ni-2018-18-02-l-education-prioritaire-etat-des-lieux_896684.pdf.

Ministère de l'Éducation nationale (2017), “Réussir le développement de la scolarisation des enfants de moins de 3 ans”, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale website, www.education.gouv.fr/cid100762/reussir-le-developpement-de-la-scolarisation-des-enfants-de-moins-de-3-ans.html (accessed 15 December 2017).

Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca (Italy) (2018), “Indicazioni nazionale e nuovi scenari: Documento a cura del Comitato Scientifico Nazionale per le Indicazioni Nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia e del primo ciclo di istruzione”[National indications and new scenarios: Document by the National Scientific Committee for National Guidelines for curriculum of nursery school and first cycle of education], Government of Italy], www.miur.gov.it/documents/20182/0/Indicazioni+nazionali+e+nuovi+scenari/3234ab16-1f1d-4f34-99a3-319d892a40f2 (accessed 16 March 2018).

Ministry of Education (New Zealand) (2017), “Māori Language in Education: goals and actions”, Ministry of Education (Government of New Zealand) website, https://education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/overall-strategies-and-policies/the-maori-education-strategy-ka-hikitia-accelerating-success-20132017/history/ka-hikitia-managing-for-success-2008-2012/ka-hikitia-managing-for-success-2008-2012-focus-areas/maori-language-in-education-goals-and-actions/ (accessed 19 April 2018).

Ministry of Education and Culture (Finland) (2017), “Supporting Immigrants in Higher Education in Finland”, Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture (Government of Finland) website, www.unipid.fi/en/page/418/supporting_immigrants_in_higher_education_in_finland_simhe/ (accessed 26 February 2018).

Ministry of Education and Culture (Finland) (2016), The educational tracks and integration of immigrants- problematic areas and proposals for actions, Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki, http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/64986/okm6.pdf.

MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport) (2015), UNESCO Education for All (EFA). National Report, Slovenia, UNESCO, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002316/231638e.pdf.

New Zealand Ministry of Education (2017), “Pasifika Education Plan Monitoring Report”, Education Counts website, www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/pasifika_education/pasifika-education-plan-monitoring-report (accessed 18 December 2018).

Norway Ministry of Education and Research (2014), “Funding of Kindergartens”, Ministry of Education and Research website, www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/families-and-children/kindergarden/innsikt/finansiering-av-barnehager/id2344788/ (accessed 15 December 2017).

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2017a), Framework Plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens, Ministry of Education and Research, Oslo, www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-plan-for-kindergartens2-2017.pdf.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2017b), Norway Country Background Report: On transitions from ECEC to Primary Education, Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, Oslo, on OECD Early childhood and schools website, www.oecd.org/education/school/SS5-country-background-report-norway.pdf.

Nusche, D., et al. (2015), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Flemish Community of Belgium 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264247598-en.

OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en.

OECD (2017a), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.

OECD (2017b), Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en.

OECD (2017c), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-3-en.

OECD (2017d), Education Policy Outlook: Austria, Education Policy Outlook Country Profiles, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/edu/profiles.htm.

OECD (2017e), OECD Economic Surveys: Italy 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-ita-2017-en.

OECD (2017f), Education Policy Outlook: Belgium, Education Policy Outlook Country Profiles, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/edu/profiles.htm.

OECD (2017g), Promising Practices in Supporting Success for Indigenous Students, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279421-en.

OECD (2016a), Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en.

OECD (2016b), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.

OECD (2016c), “PISA 2015 Results in Focus”, PISA in Focus, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/aa9237e6-en.

OECD (2016d), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.

OECD (2016e), Education in Latvia, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250628-en.

OECD (2016f), OECD Regions at a Glance 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/reg_glance-2016-en.

OECD (2015a), Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264225442-en.

OECD (2015b), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en.

OECD (2015c), Early Childhood Education and Care Policy Review: Norway, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/norway/Early-Childhood-Education-and-Care-Policy-Review-Norway.pdf.

OECD (2015d), OECD Economic Surveys: Slovenia 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-svn-2015-en.

OECD (2015e), OECD Regional Statistics (database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/region-data-en.

OECD (2014), “Indicator C2 How do early childhood education systems differ around the world?”, in Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-23-en.

OECD (2013a), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en.

OECD (2013b), Education Policy Outlook: Chile, Education Policy Outlook Country Profiles, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/edu/profiles.htm.

OECD (2012), Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en.

OECD (2011a), Against the Odds: Disadvantaged Students Who Succeed in School, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264090873-en.

OECD (2006), Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264035461-en.

OECD (2001), Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264192829-en.

OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) (2017), “Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities considers initial report of Latvia”, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21989&LangID=E (accessed 18 December 2017).

Pobal (2016), Early Years: Sector Profile 2015-2016, Pobal and Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Dublin, www.pobal.ie/Publications/Documents/Latest%20Early%20Years%20Sector%20Profile%20Published.pdf.

Prognos (2016), Kultur macht stark: Bündnisse für Bildung: Bericht zum Evaluationszeitraum 2014‑2015 [Culture makes you strong: Alliance for Education Report on the evaluation period 2014-2015, BMBF, Freiburg/ Düsseldorf, www.bmbf.de/files/Bericht%20Evaluation%202014-2015%20final.pdf.

QCAA (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority) (2017), www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/ (accessed 20 December 2017).

Regeringen (2018), “Förskolans läroplan ses över” [Pre-school curriculum is reviewed], Regeringskansliet, Stockholm, www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2017/04/forskolans-laroplan-ses-over/ (accessed 23 March 2018).

Republic of Estonia Ministry of Education and Research (2014), "Pre-school education", www.hm.ee/en/activities/pre-school-basic-and-secondary-education/pre-school-education (accessed 16 March 2018).

Santiago, P., et al. (2017), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Chile 2017, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264285637-en.

SMC (Social Mobility Commission) (2016), State of the Nation 2016: Social Mobility in Great Britain, Open Government Licence, London, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/569410/Social_Mobility_Commission_2016_REPORT_WEB__1__.pdf.

Skolverket (Swedish National Agency for Education) (2008), Ten years after the pre-school reform: A national evaluation of the Swedish pre-school, A Summary of Report 318, Stockholm, www.oecd.org/edu/school/48990164.pdf.

Stanat, P. et al. (2016), “IQB-Bildungstrend 2016. Zusammenfassung” [IQB- Education trend 2016. Summary], Waxmann, Münster, www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/bt/BT2016/Bericht.

SVR (Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration) (2017), “Die Messung von Integration in Deutschland und Europa: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen bestehender Integrationsmonitorings” [The Measurement of Integration in Germany and Europe: Possibilities and Limitations of Current Integration Monitoring], SVR, Berlin, www.svr-migration.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SVR_Integrationsmonitoring.pdf.

UNESCO UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), (2013), “Special needs education definition”, http://glossary.uis.unesco.org/glossary/map/terms/176 (accessed 15 December 2017).

Vlaanderen (Flanders) (2017), General Overview: School Population, http://ebl.vlaanderen.be/publications/documents/95793.

Yoshikawa, H. and S. Kabay (2015), The Evidence Base on Early Childhood Care and Education in Global Contexts, UNESCO, Paris, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002324/232456e.pdf.