Global Cities Education Network Presentation by Ben Levin on Equity in Education
0 likes221 views
The document discusses a study on improving student outcomes in large urban education systems, focusing on cities like Chicago, Denver, Seoul, and Shanghai. It highlights challenges such as diverse demographics and education issues, and emphasizes the need for evidence-based strategies to improve overall outcomes. Key issues considered include clarity of priorities, alignment of strategies, balancing autonomy with centralized goals, and the necessity for robust implementation plans.
More Related Content
Similar to Global Cities Education Network Presentation by Ben Levin on Equity in Education (20)
Global Cities Education Network Presentation by Ben Levin on Equity in Education
- 1. Improving Achievement in Large Cities Global Cities Education Network Ben Levin, OISE With assistance of Sofya Malik, Jacqueline Sohn January, 2013 @BenLevinOISE webspace.oise.utoronto.ca/~levinben/
- 2. Outline • The Study • Main findings • Issues for discussion
- 3. The Study • Focus on ways of improving student outcomes in large systems • Five participants – Chicago, Denver, Seoul, Shanghai, EdVisions charter school network • Based on public data and information supplied by participants
- 4. Challenges • Cities are very different in almost every way – Size, culture, demographics, education issues – Hard to take all that into account • Available information is not similar across all settings
- 5. Challenges of High Achievement • Increasing evidence that equity and excellence are not in conflict; some systems have both • Potential impact of schools on achievement subject of much debate • Improving outcomes across an entire system is very hard to do
- 6. What Matters Most? • Focused, coherent, aligned approach to improvement • Strategy grounded in evidence – “First, do no harm” – Most outcome for least effort • Building capacity to do the work • A real plan for implementation
- 7. Strategic Choices • Which measures to adopt? – Many different ideas proposed – Few have strong supporting evidence • Where to focus – Governance/structure vs. teaching/learning – Supports for students vs. instruction – In school vs. in home and community • Strategies for all vs. focus on key groups, schools
- 8. Systems - Chicago • High profile change for more than 20 years • Extremely high poverty students • Much focus on choice and accountability • Ongoing political challenges - $, labor • Some improvement in outcomes but still not good
- 9. Systems – Denver • Rapidly changing demographics – increasingly Hispanic • Balancing central focus with school autonomy • Strong focus on instruction • Significant improvements in outcomes but still large gaps
- 10. Systems – EdVisions • A network not a centrally operated system • Schools adopt a common set of principles, approaches • Attempt to broaden the outcomes considered important • No single set of outcome metrics
- 11. Systems – Seoul • High achievement, small socio-economic gaps, little diversity compared to others • Huge pressures on students on exam performance • Major out of school sector – hagwons • Concerns about level of student stress, engagement
- 12. Systems – Shanghai • Very high achievement on available measures • Migrant students lag; working on more support for such schools • Much emphasis on exam preparation, want to have more engaged and active students • Much attention to teaching practice
- 13. Key Issues 1. Is there a clear plan with a small number of priorities linked to actions and resources? 2. Are the strategies in place in each system consistent so that priorities are clear? 3. How best to balance an overall strategy with appropriate autonomy for schools? 4. Are strategies firmly grounded in research evidence? 5. What measures are used to judge progress? 6. Is there a robust implementation strategy including a process for adjustment as needed?
- 14. Questions?