The International Observatory on Academic Achievement - Documentary search

File number :
POEE-ISC-07e

Bibliographic reference :
Reference Karsten, S. (2006). Policies for Disadvantaged Children Under Scrutiny: The Dutch Policy Compared with Policies in France, England, Flanders and the USA. Comparative Education, 42(2), 261-282.

Abstract :

The author collected assessment results that reported on the effectiveness of leading policies aimed at students from underprivileged environments and implemented since the 1970s in the United States and some European countries. Then, he went on to explore alternative solutions.

Major Policies and Their Effects
The United States is the country where the first policy on positive discrimination targeting underprivileged students was implemented, with the introduction of the Title I programme in 1965.

Despite the disappointing results stemming from a few assessments, this initiative was renewed in 2002 and given the new name of No Child Left Behind. Huge amounts of funds were allocated to improve the reading, writing and numeracy skills of students from underprivileged environments, often with a high concentration of ethnic minority students. However, assessments of this programme did not reveal significant improvement in students’ performances in literacy and numeracy.

In 1968, England followed suit with the implementation of Educational Priority Areas, which involved community schools offering services to students and their parents outside school hours. This initiative, abandoned during the 1980s, was given new life in 1997 in a similar version (Education Action Zones). Assessments generated limited results regarding the effectiveness of these policies in improving academic achievement. Another initiative implemented around the same time, Excellence in Cities, seemed to produce better results, especially regarding performances in mathematics.

The Netherlands also implemented a similar policy in 1970. A number of assessments were conducted, but few encouraging results emerged. France joined the movement much later in 1981 with the implementation of the Priority Education Zones (PEZ). Assessments highlighted the lack of benefits with regard to academic achievement and the stigmatizing effect of educational inequalities.

Lastly, in Flanders, an educational priority policy was implemented in 1991 and supplemented in1993 with an anti-discrimination policy. Because this policy did not deliver the expected results, a new policy, the Equal Educational Opportunities Decree, was introduced during the 2002-2003 school year. It is still too early to assess the effects of this new policy.

Stocktaking the “Classic” Policies
Although the policies discussed above are different, they are all based on the same principles and are similar in several respects. They are also alike in that they did not produce positive results. For most of the initiatives deployed, no systematic assessment plan was implemented and the expected results were not clearly defined (indicators).

Measures to Be Considered
One of the most effective measures was the implementation of preschool education programmes (e.g., Head Start in the United States and Sure Start in England).

Despite being costly, the reduction of class size also seemed a promising measure. The United States once again led the way with the implementation of the STAR project, whose assessment revealed that students attending smaller classes had better academic results and a greater desire to pursue their education. Students who benefited the most were students from underprivileged areas.

The negative effect of summer holidays on the academic performances of students resulted in the organization of summer schools or the extension of the time students spent at school. These measures seemed to give positive results.

Using incentives to increase the motivation of teachers was another measure worth exploring (e.g., financial rewards to schools or teachers). Assessments conducted in the Unites States and Israel showed better student academic results and lower dropout rates in participating schools.

Key Words :
Underprivileged Environments, Fight Against Poverty, Positive Discrimination, Ethnic Minorities, Reading, Writing, Numeracy, Class Size, Preschool Education, Extended School Time, School Year Restructuring, Teacher Recognition, Newsletter4

Monitored Countries :
England, France, United States, Flanders (Belgium), the Netherlands