in the same period rose by over 50%. Migrants who enter into the resident populations with long-term permits also encourage migration of family members. In fact, family-related entries constitute approximately 44% of migrants to OECD countries (OECD , 2008a).
These statistics demonstrate that migrant families and communities are growing at a rapid pace and many are intending to stay for the long term. In terms of school performance, first-generation students often have difficulty because of the obvious challenges of immigration – learning a new language, adjusting to the culture and social structure of the host country, and adjusting to an unfamiliar school system (OECD , 2006a). One could argue that second-generation3 students should fare better than the first generation because they were born in the host country and grew up speaking the native language. However data from PISA 2003 and 2006 indicate that, on average across all participating countries, native students perform better than both first and second-generation immigrants in mathematics. This overall pattern is particularly troubling as it appears that in a number of countries second-generation students do not perform as well as their “native” peers even though these students were also born and raised in the country. It is also remarkable because, while this is the average across all participating countries, in a number of countries immigrant students perform as well as their
native born peers (e.g. Australia, Canada and New Zealand).
The performance of immigrant students in these countries suggests that it is not inevitable that first and second-generation students perform less well than their peers. These PISA data were key elements driving the argument that improving learning outcomes of migrant students is one of the most important reasons why educational systems have to become more effective and more equitable. It is thus crucial to isolate possible driving factors behind these performance scales and to think more broadly about key policy levers that might be used to address these inequalities. Given the diversity of the population of “immigrant students” in any one country context, there is also a need to disaggregate the data such that different patterns and performance of
subgroups within the broader population can be perceived and appropriately targeted by policy and educational interventions.
One key factor underlying performance is the interest, enjoyment and motivation that students bring with them to the task of learning. Well functioning school systems not only provide students with essential literacy skills, but also with the interest, motivation and confidence required to continue learning throughout life. PISA 2003 and 2006 show that first and second-generation students report a high level of enjoyment and satisfaction with
the topic areas under study (i.e. science and mathematics). They also report comparable or higher future expectations for a career in that subject matter:
first and second-generation students are more likely than native students to report that they expected to continue on to higher education although, in fact, children of immigrants are less likely to move on to higher education. Why is there such a large gap between immigrant students’ motivations and their scholastic performance? This question has no easy answers.
The PISA data suggest that the effect of interest, motivation and a positive self-concept in one’s studies can be overshadowed by the negative effects of other, more challenging characteristics of the learning environment. Several key elements come immediately to mind such as, for example, proficiency in the language of instruction. PISA data demonstrate that there is an effect of speaking a language other than that of instruction at home on students’ mathematics and science performance, and that this is independent of immigration status (i.e. whether students are first or second-generation immigrants). As might be expected, these differences were more pronounced for the results on reading tests than science or mathematics. One obvious instrument would thus be better language support for second language learners, as well as methods of teaching to students of multilingual backgrounds (OECD , 2006a).
In addition to the language spoken at home, the educational background of parents, the socio‑economic status of the family and parental occupation all have a bearing on the academic success of students in PISA and in other measures of performance. OECD‑ wide, a student with low socio‑economic status is twice as likely to be among the low achievers (i.e. at the bottom quartile of the PISA reading literacy score) compared with the total student population (OECD , 2001). School systems can and do attempt to address these issues, and there has been a great deal of work done on how best to ensure equitable and efficient schooling (OECD , 2007b). A key challenge for OECD countries is to ensure access to fair and inclusive education for migrants and minorities, not only to help ensure successful academic performance of these students but also to enhance social cohesion and trust, essential elements of integration. From both a social and an economic standpoint,
the long-term costs of educational failure are high, as those without the skills to participate socially and economically generate higher costs for health, income support, child welfare and security.
Of course, educational reform can be a long and slow process, and even in those countries or educational systems where strong migrant education policy has been formulated, implementation is often blocked or may progress slowly for a number of different reasons. The reality is that adjusting education systems to improve the achievement of immigrants may be given a lower priority than other pressing issues and lose out in the competition for time and resources (OECD , 2010). Practical constraints also include a lack of capacity, in terms of both time and money, to provide the necessary training and materials. A well-known impediment to change in education is the weak links between research, policy and practice, and the low level of assessment and evaluation of education policies (Burns and Schuller, 2007; OECD , 2009a).
Read More : Immigrant students
