1、本科毕业设计（论文） 外 文 翻 译 原文： OECD Reviews of Migrant Education CHAPTER 2 POLICIES TO IMPROVE MIGRANT EDUCATION This chapter identifies policies to improve migrant education in the Netherlands. Policy areas include: a) balancing school choice, equity and integration； b) ensuring monitoring and evaluation；
2、c) ensuring early intervention； d) the quality of teaching and learning environments； e) preventing drop out； and f) effective partnership and engagement Introduction This chapter identifies strengths and challenges in key policy areas to improve migrant education. Policy options are suggested in th
3、ree distinct sections: for overall system management, including to balance school choice, equity and integration, and to ensure monitoring and evaluation； for early childhood education and care (ECEC) to ensure early intervention； and for schools and communities, including the quality of teaching an
4、d learning environments, preventing drop out, and effective partnership and engagement. In each case, the report presents current strengths and challenges in each area, followed by suggested policy options. Strengths Political support to limit segregation and concentration in education The education
5、 system (broadly defined) plays a crucial and well defined role in addressing the needs of immigrants and encouraging their integration (see Chapter 1 for an overview of universal and targeted measures in place). A key element in the education component of the overall integration strategy has been d
6、eliberate steps to reduce ethnic concentration and segregation in education. Public authorities see this as indispensable to facilitating integration. As noted earlier, the distribution of immigrant students in Dutch schools is uneven, concentrated in particular schools within certain communities, a
7、nd heavily concentrated in schools in four urban areas (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht). This pattern of concentration and segregation mirrors to a certain extent the patterns of residential concentration and segregation. Therefore, since 2006, school boards, municipalities and childca
8、re providers are legally required to consult each other in order to achieve a “more balanced distribution of students across schools”. Schools under public authority (e.g. municipalities) are legally required to accept all students, if there are places available, and to encourage citizenship.9 Some
9、municipalities have gone further in encouraging schools to set limits on the percentage of ethnic minority students. Building knowledge of effective measures to tackle segregation and concentration in schools Another facet of public policy to reduce segregation in education is the National Knowledge
10、 Centre on Mixed Schools (Kenniscentrum Gemengde Scholen) supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The mission of the Centre is to disseminate knowledge on initiatives to promote quality education in mixed schools and to push for action by identifying and taking stock of local in
11、terventions (often involving parents) that reduce segregation (see Herweijer 2009a, p. 92). There are a number of other measures, some local, that aim to foster integration. The OECD review team was informed by the Municipality of Rotterdam that it offers a bus tour of potential schools for parents
12、when choosing their child s school. This is judged to be an effective way to open parents minds to consider choosing their local school as parents meet and make pacts with each other during the tour. The government of the Netherlands as well as local authorities have taken steps to realise more mixe
13、d primary schools, while preserving choice and autonomy. There are projects to facilitate moments of interaction between immigrant students and native Dutch students. In order to better determine what measures actually work, experiments are being conducted in eleven municipalities. These experiments
14、 examine the effectiveness of various measures, such as the central registering of students to achieve a better mix of students with various backgrounds (e.g. in Nijmegen). Challenges Ensuring access to high quality primary education for immigrant students There are substantial and persistent differ
15、ences between non-Western immigrant students and their native peers in the Netherlands with regard to how they perform in education and the educational pathways they follow (Chapter 1). Given the selection at age 12 into different school types, access to high quality primary education is of key impo
16、rtance for non-Western immigrant students. The OECD review team was not able to obtain school-specific performance data that would make it possible to link comparatively weak immigrant education performance to their enrolment in weak schools. There is no clear evidence that concentration per se has
17、a negative impact on education performance (van Ewijk and Sleegers, 2009). However, there is a relatively high degree of concentration of immigrants in some cities where there are concerns with school quality. Overall, more than one in ten Dutch schools are found to be under-performing. Though there
18、 are few “very weak” schools (in 2006/2007 only 1.7% of primary schools, and 1.8% of secondary schools were in this category) there were large numbers of under-performing schools in cities with high concentrations of immigrant students. In 2007, 14.1% of primary schools in the four largest cities (A
19、msterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht) were classified as under-performing； in Amsterdam alone a fifth of all primary schools fall in that category, though the proportion of schools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods krachtwijken was slightly lower at 16.9%. There is also evidence that the quality
20、 of schools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods is impaired by lack of high quality teaching staff (see “The quality of teaching and learning environments”). In the Dutch context in which schools have a high degree of autonomy in deciding on education content and pedagogy, and hiring and evaluating teac
21、hers, the Education Inspectorate plays a pivotal role in quality assurance (Box 2.2). In its supervision, the Inspectorate applies supervision arrangements which are calibrated according to the strength or weakness of schools. “Very weak” schools are put under a strict supervision arrangement and are given a period of two years to realise adequate quality. At the end of this period, the Inspectorate conducts a “quality improvement
