Conference Agenda

The effectiveness of a school system can be assessed not only by the quality of education it delivers but also by its ability to mitigate educational inequality and ensure equity (Nachbauer & Kyriakides, 2020). In this regard, it is crucial to first sketch an overall picture of the trends and patterns of educational inequality across school systems. We conducted research to identify how global educational inequality has changed over time. We focused particularly on educational outcomes to provide a fuller picture of the tangible effects of school systems across different societies/nations in terms of educational equality. The research questions were:

•What are the global trends in inequality in educational outcomes?

•What are the patterns according to the multi-index for measuring inequality in educational outcomes?

•Are the patterns of educational outcomes, as represented by the inequality indices, similar worldwide, or are there notable variations?

Regarding our research questions, cross-national comparison research highlights that countries have made significant efforts to reduce educational inequality, and some progress has been reported (e.g., Baker & LeTendre, 2005) whereas a recent meta-analysis shows that educational inequalities are more pronounced in higher-income countries (Kim et al., 2019). This mixed picture is because the measures of inequality vary as well as the period of analysis covered by research is different.

To address the issues in existing studies, we adopted a multi-index approach to measuring educational inequality and covered the period of analysis more comprehensively. Specifically, we created five standardized indices of educational inequality, each ranging from 0 to 1. These indices include commonly used measures such as 1) variance in academic achievement explained by family SES and 2) the Gini coefficient using academic achievement. The indices also include three more measures: 3) the proportion of students achieving a basic level within a country/society, 4) the difference in scores between the top and bottom groups within a country/society, and 5) the proportion of students from the bottom 25% of SES among the top 25% of academic achievers (i.e., showing resilience of low SES students). We used mathematics test scores measured by PISA from 2003 to 2018, encompassing six different time points.

Results show that inequality in educational outcomes remain substantive. Specifically, during the period from 2003 to 2018, overall inequality in educational outcomes slightly intensified. The R-square showing the relationship between SES and academic achievement slightly decreased whereas the other four indices remained the same or showed an upward trend, indicating either no improvement or worsening of educational inequality. As far as PISA 2018 is concerned, the global trend of educational inequality has more similarities, characterized by the striking difference in the proportion of students achieving a basic level of academic proficiency (i.e., proficient level 2 by PISA) among the countries; in countries with higher overall inequality, the proportion of students reaching a basic level of academic proficiency was lower.

In conclusion, this study is significant in that it empirically presents the global trends in educational inequality from multiple inequality lenses, thereby highlighting areas needing further improvement.

In the highly stratified German educational system the transition to secondary school is crucial for students´ educational pathways. Teachers’ give an enrollment recommendation based on students´ performance for a secondary school-track after grade four. This recommendation is not binding and 15% of students attend a higher school-type than recommended.

Given the importance of the transition it is alarming that this decision is still highly associated with students´ social background (SES) (Boudon, 1974; Broer, 2019). Also deviations from teachers´ recommendation are biased due to parental motives of status attainment and opportunity costs. As higher family support among high-SES students is anticipated, teachers’ assess students´ potential to be successful at the academic track differently (Neugebauer, 2010). Even though research showed that about 70% of students who attended an academic-track school without an academic-track enrollment recommendation (ATER) were successful (Pfost et al., 2018), little is known about success factors. Referring to Wigfield and Eccles’ (2000) expectancy-value theory, motivational factors like students´ expectation of success or extrinsic motivation promote educational attainment (Ditton et al., 2019). Being potentially malleable it is promising to assess the role of motivational factors to buffer against educational inequalities (Wang & Finch, 2018).

Thus we investigated whether SES (parental education and occupation), opportunity costs (financial burden and learning stress) and motivational factors (expectation of success, perceived idealistic parental aspirations, value of education and performance-related motivation) are of specific relevance for the educational attainment of incorrectly assessed students (obtained an Abitur (Higher School Certificate) without ATER.). We used four measurement points from the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS, SC3) starting in Grade 7 in Winter 2012/13 (N=2,671 students; M=10.4 years, SD=0.85, 48.2% female) (NEPS Network, 2021).

A MANOVA was conducted comparing students with and without ATER who obtained Abitur. Furthermore, group-comparing structural equation models (SEM) were specified comparing all students in our sample by the recommendation received in terms of their educational attainment. Value of education and performance-related motivation were modelled latently, reliabilities were good. Furthermore we controlled for a set of competence-related measures, gender, school-type, and language spoken at home.

The MANOVA revealed higher SES and motivation among students who obtained Abitur with ATER, while students without ATER scored higher on learning stress. SEMs showed that SES (especially parental education) was more relevant for students without ATER. Motivational factors (especially expectation of success) were important in both groups, but more relevant for students with ATER.

Findings underline the importance of SES – especially for students without ATER parental education is key to educational attainment meaning another disadvantage for low-SES students. In general motivation is relevant for educational attainment of all students.

Relating to the conference theme the following practical implications arise: Aiming to reduce educational inequalities, including the institutional level and the role of the teacher is necessary. Providing teachers’ feedback on the accuracy of their enrollment recommendations is promising to enhance students’ educational attainment. Also longer learning together or a higher flexibility in changing school-tracks should be discussed. On the individual level fostering all students´ motivation is important.

Purpose – In Australia, under the National Assessment Plan, educational accountability testing in literacy and numeracy is annually undertaken with one million students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 to monitor student achievement and inform policy. This is undertaken through high-stakes testing through the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests. Since 2008, NAPLAN improvements have focused on how the results are publicly reported, but it still continues to draw criticism for its narrow scope and negative impact on students. This small-scale study aims to highlight the views of students across Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 who sat for the NAPLAN test in 2023 and their experience of sitting the new online adaptive version of this test as well as their perception of its usefulness in their learning.

Research question – What perceptions do students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 have of the importance of NAPLAN tests within their own learning?

Context – Changes to the NAPLAN in 2023, included introducing earlier testing in March, and improved reporting methods. Over 2022-23, the Australian government aims to provide $26.4 billion to states and territories to support school education under its Quality Schools arrangements. The NAPLAN, as a system-level tool indicates the effectiveness of this return on investment. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority claim NAPLAN 2023 will assist teachers in providing targeted learning support, including challenging high-performers and identifying students who need support. This suggested diagnostic ability will be available for students and schools when results come out in July this year. They suggest the test will assist schools in mapping individual student progress, identifying strengths and weaknesses in teaching programs and setting school goals for further improvement in literacy and numeracy. NAPLAN results are transparently reported since 2008 on the MySchool website, positioning it as a high-stakes test meeting public accountability and confidence in Australian schooling. However, practitioners and researchers have advocated against this test’s negative impact on equitable teaching and learning across Australian schools.

Methods – This study used an open-access, quantitative survey tool to identify Australian students' perceptions of the usefulness of this test in their learning. This novel approach, securing student voice on a large-scale test, was the first of its kind in Australia, even though substantial research has been done on NAPLAN's impact on students, schools and teachers.

Evidence – Over 500 students took part in this study and provided their views on the NAPLAN test. This data is being analysed to understand its usefulness as perceived by Australian students who undertake NAPLAN four times during the duration of their school years.

Educational importance – The findings provide student-level first-hand insight into the effectiveness of this test. The findings may provide recommendations for improvements to NAPLAN test administration, reporting and data use in schools.

Connection to the conference theme – The findings may inform educational systems through leveraging research and data on student perceptions of NAPLAN for better inquiry, insight, innovation and professional learning on using the data from these tests at the student and teacher level.

Research question

How can rubrics be converted into transcripted grades in an equitable manner?

Objective

This paper offers tools and insights for developing equitable grading systems aligned with schools' pedagogical philosophies. Two case studies illustrate successful grade conversion methods, promoting equitable grade distributions and empowering students.

Context

Case study 1: School A - An international project-based learning (PBL) school that prioritizes student autonomy and engagement. The grading system relies on 3-point rubrics, which are converted into letter grades for transcripts.

Case study 2: School B - A traditional Brazilian school following the National Common Core Curriculum (BNCC), with a rigorous academic environment. Rubrics were used to evaluate an interdisciplinary project, which were then converted into points and incorporated into the overall grading system.

Method and techniques

In School A, each course employs 4 concept rubrics (Advanced, Proficient, Developing, and Not yet) to assess outcomes. Previous boundaries were set for converting these rubrics into letter grades. However, this approach had limitations. For instance, receiving a "Developing" in any outcome restricted the maximum achievable grade to a B. This resulted in a skewed distribution of final grades and generated frustration among students and teachers, shifting their focus away from the learning process.

To address these challenges, a new formula was developed (doesn't fit here)

In School B, the interdisciplinary project was assessed using 4-point rubrics, at the end summing 1 point to the students' final grades. There were a total of 5 rubrics, one for individual assessment and four for group assessment. The individual rubric accounted for 0.5 points, while the four group rubrics combined accounted for the other 0.5 points. If a student achieved a perfect score, they would receive a total of 8 points (4 from the individual and 4 from the group rubrics). This value of 8 points was considered equivalent to 1 point in their final grade. To calculate this proportion, this was performed:

Individual rubric +(Group Rubric 1 + Group rubric 2 + Group Rubric 3 + Group Rubric 4)/4)/8

This would result in how much would be summed in their final semester grade on the disciplines.

Data

The data for School A pertains to the final grades of students during the 2022-2023 school year.

The data for School B represents the points that were added to students' final grades for the second semester of 2018.

Graph 1: School's A grades for Math 9th grade

Graph 2: School's A student count of all subjects of 10th grade students

Graph 3: School's B grade distribution.

Conclusion

In summary, this article explores innovative grading solutions that align with pedagogical philosophies, emphasizing holistic student assessments over letter grades. It presents successful case studies from School A and School B, demonstrating the positive impact of new grading methods.

In conclusion, the article highlights the importance of refining grading methodologies to meet evolving educational demands, promoting fair and effective assessments that empower students on their learning journeys.