SUBREGIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE ROLE AND PLACE OF ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION SYSTEMS' STEERING AND REFORM POLICY-MAKERS WORKSHOP APPENDICES

Transcription

1 SUBREGIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE ROLE AND PLACE OF ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION SYSTEMS' STEERING AND REFORM POLICY-MAKERS WORKSHOP APPENDICES 20 & 21 MAI 2014 PULLMAN HOTEL, DAKAR 1

2 Table of contents APPENDIX 1 : Workshop Agenda...3 APPENDIX 2 : Concept paper of the workshop...5 APPENDIX 3 : Liste des participants

3 APPENDIX 1 Workshop Agenda 3

4 Schedule Tuesday, May 20 th :30-9:30am Arrival of dignitaries and invited guests 9:30-10:15 am Opening ceremony - Address by CONFEMEN s Secretary General - Address by the World Bank representative - Address by the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie - Opening speech by CONFEMEN s president-in-office 10:15-10:30am Coffee break 10:30-11:15 Introductory presentation - Steven Obeegadoo, workshop moderator am Opening presetation Jacques Malpel, PASEC Coordinator 11:15 am - 1:00 pm Summary of the study conducted on 12 countries National assessment system François Robert, Consultant 1:00-2:30pm Lunch break 2:30-3:30pm Presentation on the use of students achievement assessments to monitor educational system Experiences from Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast and Senegal Discussions 3:30-3:45pm Coffee break 3:45-4:45pm Presentation on the use of students achievement assessments to monitor educational system (continued) Experiences from South Africa, Ontario (Canada) and Poland Discussions 4:45 5 :00 Conclusion of the day and presentation of the working sessions of the following day 7:30-9:30 pm Diner offered by CONFEMEN and the World Bank to ministers, experts and delegations. Schedule Wednesday, May 21 st :00-11:00am Closed session for ministers, MoPs and heads of delegation : proposals, strategies and recommendations for an improved exploitation of assessments results in educational policies design For other participants : parallel sessions on 1. national assessment results dissemination 11:00am- 12:00pm 2. the role of research Suspension/adjournment of the workshop (Drafting of the final report by the group of experts) 12:00-1:00pm Ministers and working groups reports restitution Decisions and recommendations adoption and closing of the decision-makers workshop 13pm- Lunch break 4

5 APPENDIX 2 Concept paper of the workshop 5

6 POLICY-MAKERS WORKSHOP CONCEPT PAPER PASEC / MAY Assessment and education systems' steering Assessment is one of the key functions of the education system at all levels and aims at measuring the gaps between targets and results by using quantitative or qualitative data with the view to inform reliably a number of predefined indicators 1. Ordinarily, and within classrooms themselves, teachers usual activities include assignments and tests. Assessment refers to various realities of education professionals' everyday life. As an example, one may mention some assessment functions common to all education systems and existing at all levels of a system : certificational and examination assessments, staff assessment, assessment of education practices, assessment of students' performances, etc. Under the current thinking, the emphasis is laid more specifically on the place of the assessment of school achievements in an education system, the objective being more specifically to think about the role that function may play to direct sector-based policies. Role of school achievements' assessment A school achievements' assessment allows appraising the results of a system at different levels in (i) measuring the level of knowledge and competencies of learners in space and time according to defined benchmarks, (ii) by informing on factors contributing to success and equity, or (ii) by awarding certificates and diplomas. These different functions contribute in appraising the quality of the education system. Several roles may be assigned to assessments according to how we want to use them in steering education systems. These different functions assigned to assessment are based on different assessment methods. Assessments by survey International assessments of students' learning achievements are generally used to measure the learning level of students from one country based on common competency benchmarks, to measure the progress of that level, to determine factors (students, teachers, classrooms, school principals, schools) associated with the different performance levels of students, and compare the performance of one country with the one of other countries. Generally, this international comparison role tends to be overly emphasized, to the extent that some stakeholders consider the international assessment only as a classification tool at the expense of other usages it may have. National assessments of learning achievements look like international assessments, the only difference being that they are limited to one country. Then, the objectives are defined against curricula and issues specific to a country, in general to respond to education policy issues through objectives set in the strategic plan. 1 CONFEMEN (2008). L évaluation des systèmes éducatifs : pour un meilleur pilotage par les résultats. Dakar : CONFEMEN. 6

7 Formative assessments The formative assessment may be used for instance by a teacher in his class-room, to seek information on learning achievements in progress. Thus, it allows measuring the progress of one student against a given objective and thus enable to carry out a remediation work. Summative assessments The summative assessment is used to appraise the knowledge and competencies of a student at the end of a learning process. End of cycle examinations (like in the primary cycle) are summative assessments because they are used to measure the knowledge and competencies of students so as to select those who will be admitted to a higher cycle. This type of assessment gives little space for the conduct of remediation or coaching actions for students who have failed. Passing those examinations may be sometimes influenced by the capacity of the higher cycle to absorb those who are admitted. While the avowed aim of the whole education policies is to meet all the requirements for students to be able to learn and draw a maximum of profit from learnings, it seems that the assessment of school learning achievements has seldom a key place in the definition and monitoring of education policies 2. Very often, what is noticed is that policy monitoring indicators relate primarily to inputs (workbooks, school materials, equipments) or the management of students flows within the education system (enrolment rate, retention rate, students/teacher ratio, etc.) while the key objective of the system seems less steadily monitored. In the meantime, school learning achievements, measured for the sub-saharan Africa subregion through different assessment methods, remain low despite the financial efforts made by States and families. They do not manage to ensure a fair quality education. 3 According to the last Education For All Global Monitoring Report published by UNESCO "given that 250 millions of children are not learning basic skills, it is crucial to set for post 2015 a goal enabling to check if by 2030, all young people and children, whatever their financial situation, learn basic skills in reading, writing and mathematics". For this to come true, countries should strengthen their national assessment systems and make sure policies take into account those assessments" 4. While we are approaching a key date for the international agenda in education, the year 2015, at a time when the one for the next decade is being prepared, CONFEMEN wishes to highlight the key role of assessments and the measurement of students learning achievements, to steer education systems. This leads to asking a number of questions: How to shift from diagnostics to remediation measures and establish relevant mechanisms to better address difficulties or successes as well as factors contributing to them highlighted by assessments? 2 CONFEMEN (2008). L évaluation des systèmes éducatifs : pour un meilleur pilotage par les résultats. Dakar : CONFEMEN ; Best, M., Knight, P., Lietz. P. et al. (2013). The impact of national and international assessment programmes on education policy, particularly policies regarding resource allocation and teaching and learning practices in developing countries. London : EPPI-Centre. ; Kellaghan, T., Greaney V., Murray T.S. (2009). Using the results of a national assessment of educational achievement (National assessments of educational achievement ; v. 5. Washington : The World Bank. 3 CONFEMEN (2011). Synthèse des résultats PASEC VII,VIII et IX. Dakar : CONFEMEN. 4 UNESCO (2014). Enseigner et apprendre : atteindre la qualité pour tous. Paris : Editions UNESCO. 7

8 How to establish policy monitoring indicators in relation with school achievements? How to make sure actions taken under the education policy have had the expected outcomes and how to avoid adverse effects? How to foster dialogue between analysts and policy-making bodies upstream as well as downstream assessments, and end up generally with a better use of results from those assessments? How to guide research so that school successes or failures are better understood? Experiences from some countries in the use of assessments in steering education systems To answer those questions, representatives of some countries, identified for their interest of their assessment practices, will share their experience during that workshop. Among subsaharan Africa francophone countries, Burkina Faso, Côte d'ivoire and Senegal will make a presentation. Besides, Poland, the Canadian province of Ontario and South Africa will share with the audience their experience gained in this respect. Presentations will revolved around the following questions: How does the country define equity and quality in education? How is it formulated? Is an assessment policy defined in the education field in the country? If yes, is it applied and how? What are the mechanisms implemented to measure the progress in terms of equity and quality in education (assessments, stakeholders,...)? What are the main results achieved, and how are they used in monitoring the strategic plan? How has the country translated those data into policies or targeted reforms? What are the strengths and weaknesses (at each level of the process : vision of equity and quality; mechanisms of the assessment system; dissemination and use of results) noticed in this process of using assessments of students learning achievements for the steering of the education system? 2 - What are some avenues to turn assessment results into education policies? Towards a better use of data generated by assessments, four major focus areas appear : (i) thinking about the place of national assessment systems, (ii) conducting actions so as to ensure the relevance and reliability of information provided by the latter, (iii) identifying mechanisms so as to promote an institutional ownership and (iv) reflecting on the identification process of policies to be implemented following an assessment. i - Place of national assessment systems Several surveys 5 combined with PASEC's twenty years of experience show that one of the items which is likely to promote the use of data generated by different assessment methods, and especially the one relating to school learning achievements, is the existence within education systems of sustainable bodies in charge of their implementation. Those bodies will help ensure the conclusions of assessments are disseminated among policy- 5 PASEC (2014). Analyse des dispositifs d évaluation et de leur emploi dans la gouvernance des systèmes éducatifs de douze pays de la CONFEMEN (en cours); Kellaghan, T., Greaney V., Murray T.S. (2009). Using the results of a national assessment of educational achievement (National assessments of educational achievement ; v. 5. Washington : The World Bank. 8

9 makers and that a real dialogue is established between the two parties. There is the issue of the legitimacy of bodies, and namely the ones in charge of the assessment of school learning achievements, to initiate actions aimed at remediating difficulties highlighted by assessments : Considering the observed gap in learning quality, the policy response is unlikely to be the prerogative of one single administrative structure. A quality policy is recognized for its composite nature, so it raises the question of who will lead the initiative of proposing a series of interrelated measures, a part of which does not fall within its scope. In this context, the establishment of sustainable assessment bodies with clearly defined missions might allow for a better coordinated action by education stakeholders and is likely to provide a relevant response to identified issues. Additionally, by stabilizing competencies and the required material resources for the conduct of assessments, such bodies may also enable to keep improving the reliability and relevance of data collected as well as their analysis. ii - Relevance and reliability of information provided by assessments One of the reason why assessment results of school learning achievements are so poorly taken into account in some cases may be the inadequacy between data and analyses produced and the needs of policy-makers. To achieve this, it is necessary to establish a dialogue between the latter and analysts so that the concerns and priority issues of policymakers are taken into account as early as the design stage of the relevant assessments. This is all the more crucial as according to a survey commissioned by PASEC some stakeholders think that "the statistical information provided in assessment reports is overabundant, and in the meantime, sector-based programmes tend to act on the whole possible levers of quality improvement without the accurate data from reports providing them with support to direct them". Once the assessment tools are defined in the consultation, the next step is to collect and analyse reliably the collected data so as to report with objectivity the realities in question. This component may also require a capacity building work for technical teams, as the lack of specialized skills may sometimes lead to outsourcing the data analysis with the risk to get less relevant results and less in adequacy with the context in which operate stakeholders. iii-institutional ownership of information Several conditions are required for the optimal use of assessment results (at central and decentralized levels). Kellaghan and Greaney (2009) referring to several works 6 quote four of them : - The political will, which is expressed by an opening to new information, and to prospects of change or reform from policy-makers. - Raising the awareness of policy-makers (at central and decentralized levels) for them to get the required tools so as to interpret and use the information provided by a national or international assessment. - The incorporation of assessment activities within the strategy and other ministry activities so as not to make it an isolated activity. In particular, the role of 6 Kellaghan T., Greaney V. (2004) Assessing Student Learning in Africa. Washington, DC : World Bank ; Postlethwaite, T. N. (1987). Comparative Educational Achievement Research: Can It Be Improved? Comparative Education Review 31 (1): ; Vegas, E., Petrow J. (2008). Raising Student Learning in Latin America :The Challenge for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: World Bank. 9

10 assessments in the development of policies, in decision-making processes and in the allocation of resources must be clearly defined. - The definition and implementation of a communication strategy of results towards the whole relevant stakeholders, and namely those who have a role in the implementation of policies deriving from it. In a decentralized mechanism, for instance, the results should be accessible to managers at local level (regional or departmental inspectorate) to allow them to carry out appropriate actions at their level. In this respect, it may be required to design communication materials which format meet the needs of the different targeted profiles. iv - Process for identifying policies to be implemented Stakeholders have a clear understanding of the stakes attached to the development of standardized assessments and to the control of their process. All countries can observe the emergence of a new group of partners with converging injunctions : the renovated results framework of the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), the multiple wishes for the orientation of sector-based plans towards a resultsbased management, more frequent funding of test operations and capacity building efforts for bodies responsible for them, the focus required on the improvement of learning results in sector-based planning, etc. However, it is actually quite uncommon to identify with certainty a policy measure directly derived from an assessment analysis, measures referred to responding more often to a general desire to improve learning quality. Test-based assessments may have strengthened already existing warning signals, but it appears that the richness of their details is not utilized, with regard to specific skills with which children experience difficulties, results dissemination and underlying factors (e.g. teacher effect or school effect). Some assessment results can directly suggest, based on collected data, what actions might address the identified problem. This is true for some inputs which absence or insufficiency can directly affect the learning process. By contrast, for other results, and this is the most frequent case, the problem is more complex and cannot be limited to a simple equation. Remedial actions for raised problems should consider several interrelated factors such as the motivation and working conditions of teachers, the hourly volume, the school organization etc. As noted by OECD 7 : "Linking assessment on the one hand and class learning on the other hand requires a clear definition of the role of local bodies - school management, school supervision, local education authorities - in the implementation of assessment strategies". In these cases, assessment results are an invitation to conduct further studies in order to identify more precisely levers of action for addressing a given issue or deepening complex themes. Partnerships with the research community could also help enrich analyses, by cross-referencing those proposed by public agencies or external experts with research publications, which perspective on public policies and their evaluation is different. 8 7 OECD (2013). Synergies for better learning - an international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Paris : OECD. 8 Blalock, A. B Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement. Evaluation 5 (2):

11 After a review work carried out in twelve countries 9, it appears that despite the alarming results generally reported in studies, these raise few requests for additional explanations and/or programming of further studies. In addition, technical teams, whose institutional positioning and missions are not always clearly defined for the moment, are poorly proactive in this regard. The same study highlights the need for better coordination between the departments responsible for conducting assessments and the different directorates of ministries at the risk of perpetuating a situation of immobility. "Considering the observed gap in learning quality, the policy response is unlikely to be the prerogative of one single administrative structure. A quality policy is recognized for its composite nature, so it raises the question of who will lead the initiative of proposing a series of interrelated measures, a part of which does not fall within its scope. The initiative remains associated with risk-taking (...), while no risk is attached by tradition to maintaining an even unsatisfactory status quo." Towards an assessment policy Based on the double observation of poor results in terms of learning achievement at the subregional level, and the distant relation between learning assessment and education policies definition, actions must be taken for sector strategies to be more based on objective assessment of the situation. For this, the conditions for a fruitful dialogue between analysts and policymakers need to be created. This could be enhanced by (i) the establishment of permanent bodies with an assessment function to support the system management, and whose missions could include the harmonization of the different assessments carried out, (ii) the formalization of the relationship between the bodies responsible for the assessment and the various education stakeholders at central and more local levels, so that remediation can be carried out based on findings outlined by assessments and ( iii) the implementation of awareness activities to promote a paradigm shift and focus change from ways for implementing policies to an increased attention on their results. 9 PASEC (2014). Analysis of assessment mechanisms and their use in the governance of twelve CONFEMEN member countries' education systems (in progress); 11

12 APPENDIX 3 List of participants 12

13 LIST OF THE PARTICIPANTS TO THE DECISION-MAKERS WORKSHOP MAY 20 th &21 st 2014 (PULLMAN HOTEL, Dakar, Senégal) DÉLÉGATIONS PAYS CONFEMEN Pays/Organisation Prénom-NOM Fonction Téléphone/Fax Directeur du Cabinet du Ministre des M. Albert ADAGBE Enseignements Maternel et Primaire, représentant le Ministre empêché Bénin Burkina-Faso M. Mohamed ABOUBAKARI Correspondant National de la CONFEMEN M. François V. HOUEDO Responsable de l'équipe National PASEC M. Moussiliou A. MOUSTAPHA M. Wiinson Emmanuel GOABGA M. Managabamba Marius ZOUNGRANA Mme. Christiane ILBOUDO Directeur de l'institut National pour la Formation et la Recherche en Éducation / Secrétaire Général du ministère de l'education Nationale et de l'alphabétisation Coordonnateur National de la CONFEMEN Responsable du PASEC / / M. Karim KY Coordonnateur du Dispositif National d'evaluation

14 M. Barbatus HARUSHINGINGO Assistant du Ministre Burundi Cameroun M. Pascal MUKENE Correspondant national M. Patrice MANENGERI Mme Godelieve RURATANDITSE Directeur du Bureau des Evaluations du Système Éducatif Chargée des questions pédagogiques au bureau des Etudes et des Programmes de l'enseignement secondaire (BEPES) M. Ivo LEKE TAMBO SG du Ministère de l'education de Base M. Ambroise OWOTSOGO ONGUENE Chef de la Division de la Planification, des Projets et de la Coopération M. Simon Pierre FOUDA Correspondant national M. Jules KWEUKEU Responsable de l'equipe technique Nationale PASEC Canada-QC Mme Jo-Anne BELLWARE Conseillère MRIFCE Mme Agathe FISET Correspondante nationale 001(418) poste 2356 Canada-NB M. Sylvain LAVOIE Correspondant national M.Anaclet NIAMAYOUA Correspondant national M. Jonas DIASSONAMA BAVOUIDINSI Responsable National de l'equipe PASEC Congo M. Fidèle MIALOUNDAMA Dispositif National d'evaluation

15 S.E Mme Kandia CAMARA Ministre de l'education Nationale et de l'enseignement Technique Côte d'ivoire M. Abdoulaye KOUYATE Chef de cabinet M. Noël KOUASSI KONAN Correspondant national M. Joseph François Désiré KAUPHY Responsable de l'equipe Nationale PASEC France Mme Nadine PROST Correspondante nationale M. François SOW Correspondant national FWB M. Dominique BARTHELEMY Correspondant national Mme Maha HUSSEINI Conseillère pédagogique Liban M. François SEMAAN HAKIM Responsable du français au primaire M. Mamadou SISSOUMA Correspondant national Mali M.Seydou DOUMBIA S.E Mme Jacqueline Nana TOGOLA Attaché de cabinet du ministre Ministre de l'education Nationale Mme Kourakoro BAGAYOKO Responsable nationale de l'equipe PASEC M. Mamadou Bamory KONE Responsable du Dispositif national d'evaluation

16 Maurice M. Ram Prakash RAMLUGUN Correspondant national / M. Abouzeidi Dan MAZA Correspondant National Niger M. Abdou LAWAN MAROUMA Responsable National de l'equipe PASEC M. Alio IBRAHIM Directeur de l'evaluation M. LUFUNISABO BUNDOKI Correspondant national; SG à l'ensgmt primaire, secondaire et professionnel RDC M. KUBINDIKILA KAPAY Responsable de l'equipe Nationale du PASEC Prof. Mme ONSINNSAMAN Angèle Experte / M. MULANDA KIMPEMBE Directeur d'evaluation TENAFEP Roumanie Mme Valerica FUSELOVA Correspondante nationale S.E. M. Serigne Mbaye THIAM Ministre de l'éducation nationale M. Djibril Ndiaye DIOUF Correspondant national Sénégal M. Alhousseynou SY Responsable d équipe PASEC alhousseynous.ineade@yahoo.fr M. Mama Ibra BA Directeur de l évaluation mameibra2011@hotmail.com M. Abdou DIAO Directeur de l'enseignement Elémentaire 16

17 Tchad M. Ibrahima NDOUR M. Sande NGARNOUDJIBE Correspondant national M. Laurent DIHOULNE Directeur de l'enseignement moyen et secondaire général Directeur Général de la Planification et des Ressources / / M.Aaron PATALE Responsable technique PASEC M. Ayayi Apélété KUDJOH Correspondant national akudjoh@yahoo.fr Togo M. Kossi ABOU Responsable de l'equipe nationale PASEC gentab2001@yahoo.fr M. Missodé EKON Directeur de la planification de l'éducation et de l'évaluation ekomiss@yahoo.fr Burkina Faso Burundi Hon. Dep. Gisèle GUIGMA Hon. Dep. Sennel NDUWIMANA PARLEMENTAIRES Député membre de la CEASC et rapporteur RF/BPF gguigma2000@yahoo.fr Député Congo Hon. Dep. Fidèle BOSSA Député Côte d'ivoire RDC Hon. Dep. Nassalatou DIABY Hon. Dep. Oscar N'SAMAN -O- LUTU Député membre de la commison affaires sociales Député Panafricain, Député national membre commission éducation / nduwimanasennel@yahoo.fr / fidelebossa / nassadiaby@gmail.com / oscarlutu@yahoo.fr Sénégal Hon. Dep. Aminata GUEYE 17

18 Tchad Togo Hon. Dep. Djidengar Ndjendi BASSA Hon. Dep. Kokou AGBO Président de la commission éducation / Membre de la commission éducation du Togo et du Parlement panafricain PARTENAIRES TECHNIQUES ET FINANCIERS AFD Mme Valérie TEHIO Responsable-adjointe ANCEFA Mme Marise SAGNA Responsable de programme + (221) marisesagna@gmail.com AUF Mme Francine QUEMENER Coordonnatrice régionale des projets/bureau Afrique de l'ouest francine.quemener@auf.org BANQUE MONDIALE M. Raja Bentaouet KATTAN Responsable du Secteur développement humain (Sénégal, Mauritanie, Gambie, G-B, C-V) M. Kevin MACDONALD Consultant Banque mondiale rbkattan@worldbank.org kadmacdonald@gmail.com CODESRIA CONFEJES M. ABDON SOFONNOU Program Manager M. François ALLA YAO Directeur des programmes EPS/sports abdon.sofonnou@codesria.sn DDC Suisse FHI360 Mme Valérie LIECHTI Mme. Guitele NICOLEAU Conseillère en politiques éducatives (+41 ) valerie.liechti@eda.admin.ch Représentante régionale de l'éducation, WACA- MENA gnicoleau@fhi360.org NORRAG M. Michel CARTON Directeur Exécutif michel.carton@graduateinstitute.ch Mme Stéphanie LANGSTAFF Assistant chercheur Stephanie.langstaff@graduateinstitute.ch 18

19 OIF Mme Fadia NASSIF Spécialiste de programme UNESCO/IIPE Mme Diane COURY Pôle de Dakar Jonathan JOURDE ROCARE UNESCO-BREDA Mme Ida Jallow SALLAH AZOH François Mme Ann Thèrese NDONG- JATTA Secrétaire Exécutif Comité scientifique Directrice Mme Valérie DJIOZE Spécialiste éducation UNICEF WCARO M. Yumiko YOKOZEKI Conseiller régional en éducation AMBASSADEURS Burkina Faso M. Alain BADO Conseiller culturel Côte d'ivoire S.E. Edouard Tiape KASSARATE Ambassadeur Niger Mme Tahirou RAHILA RABIOU Première secrétaire EXPERTS-CONSULTANTS Afrique du Sud M. Meshack Qetelo MOLOI Director BASIC EDUC - SA Moloi.q@dbe.gov.za 19

20 Canada-ON Dr. Mary Jean GALLAGHER Assistant Deputy Minister and Student Achievement France M. François ROBERT Consultant Mauritanie Mmz Nebghouha MINT MOHAMMED VALL Consultante Maurice M. Steven OBEEGADOO Modérateur Pologne M. Maciej JAKUBOWSKI Former Deputy Minister of Education COMITE SCIENTIFIQUE PASEC Président du comité scientifique du PASEC M. François NDEBANI Enseignant chercheur - Conseiller Programme national d'éducation frndebani@yahoo.fr COMITÉ ORGANISATEUR Secrétariat Général M. Jacques Boureima KI Secrétaire Général bjacqueski@confemen.org Mme Penda NDIAYE DIA Attachée administrative du SG confemen@confemen.org M.Jacques MALPEL Coordonnateur du PASEC jmalpel@confemen.org PASEC M. Moussa HAMANI OUNTENI Conseiller Technique PASEC mounteni@confemen.org Mme Aurore DU ROY Conseillère technique PASEC aduroy@confemen.org Mme Khady MBAYE CAMARA Assistante pôle Evaluation kmbaye@confemen.org 20