外文翻譯---經(jīng)合組織對移民教育的評論

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)設計（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　OECD Reviews of Migrant Education</p><p>　　CHAPTER 2 </p><p>　　POLICIES

2、TO IMPROVE MIGRANT EDUCATION </p><p>　　This chapter identifies policies to improve migrant education in the Netherlands. Policy areas include: a) balancing school choice, equity and integration; b) ensuring

3、monitoring and evaluation; c) ensuring early intervention; d) the quality of teaching and learning environments; e) preventing drop out; and f) effective partnership and engagement</p><p>　　Introduction <

4、/p><p>　　This chapter identifies strengths and challenges in key policy areas to improve migrant education. Policy options are suggested in three distinct sections: for overall system management, including to b

5、alance 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

6、 teaching and learning environments, preventing drop out, and effective partner</p><p>　　Strengths </p><p>　　Political support to limit segregation and concentration in education </p><

7、;p>　　The education 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 measur

8、es in place). A key element in the education component of the overall integration strategy has been deliberate steps to reduce ethnic concentration and segregation in education. Public authorities see this as indispensab

9、le to facilitating integration. As noted earlier, the distribution o</p><p>　　Building knowledge of effective measures to tackle segregation and concentration in schools </p><p>　　Another facet

10、of public policy to reduce segregation in education is the National Knowledge Centre on Mixed Schools (Kenniscentrum Gemengde Scholen) supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The mission of the Centr

11、e 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 interventions (often involving parents) that reduce segregation (

12、see Herweijer 2009a, p. 92). There are a numbe</p><p>　　The government of the Netherlands as well as local authorities have taken steps to realise more mixed primary schools, while preserving choice and auto

13、nomy. 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 muni

14、cipalities. These experiments examine the effectiveness of various measures, such as the central registering of students to achie</p><p>　　Challenges </p><p>　　Ensuring access to high quality pr

15、imary education for immigrant students</p><p>　　There are substantial and persistent differences between non-Western immigrant students and their native peers in the Netherlands with regard to how they perfo

16、rm 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 importance for non-Western immigrant stu

17、dents. The OECD review team was not able to obtain school-specific performance data that would make it possible to link c</p><p>　　In the Dutch context in which schools have a high degree of autonomy in deci

18、ding on education content and pedagogy, and hiring and evaluating teachers, the Education Inspectorate plays a pivotal role in quality assurance (Box 2.2). In its supervision, the Inspectorate applies supervision arrange

19、ments 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 qual</p><

20、p>　　Policy options </p><p>　　The Dutch government has made it clear that a policy of “separate but equal” schools is not an option. At the same time, the freedom of school choice and patterns of residenti

21、al concentration make it difficult to ensure balanced enrolments across all schools. This makes it essential to ensure quality education is accessible in all schools. The first step should be to raise quality by more clo

22、sely overseeing and strengthening the numerous weak as well as rare very weak schools.11 A second step (o</p><p>　　Raise the quality of schooling for immigrant students by identifying under-performing school

23、s and either improving them or closing them</p><p>　　School autonomy and choice are not, in and of themselves, bad for achieving good and fair education outcomes. Indeed, recent analyses of system level vari

24、ables suggest that when there is strong guidance regarding desired outcomes (e.g. through centrally administered external examinations) a high degree of autonomy at the level of the classroom is strongly associated with

25、better and more equitable outcomes as measured by PISA.12 Following a decade of measures to strengthen school autonomy, the Du</p><p>　　It is important to monitor and ensure the quality of teaching, without

26、impinging on the authority of school leaders. Presently the Inspectorate evaluates the general quality of teaching in a school, but leaves to school leaders the responsibility for evaluating the quality of individual tea

27、chers. Where the quality of teaching in a particular school is found to be poor, the Inspectorate works with the school to develop a plan for improvement, and then follows up to see whether improvements have o</p>

28、<p>　　The common standards and performance reference levels that the government will introduce provide a good basis for stronger oversight of school quality (see “Quality of teaching and learning”). These need to b

29、e incorporated now into explicit criteria that the Education Inspectorate can use to monitor the quality and equity of education outcomes of individual schools. For example, once levels of basic competencies for all stud

30、ents are established, these can be used to evaluate school performance w</p><p>　　The approach of focusing on the quality of schools is consistent with developments in other countries. In the United States,

31、federal legislation holds individual schools accountable for ensuring that a given percentage of students from different socio-economic and ethnic sub-groups perform adequately; the targets rise over time.13 In Denmark,

32、municipalities are now responsible for preparing quality of education reports based on performance measures of individual schools.</p><p>　　However, strategies based on improved performance feedback, though

33、necessary, are not sufficient. Once feedback identifies shortcomings there is a need for robust remedies. When performance for any particular group – immigrant or disadvantaged students – falls short, the Education Inspe

34、ctorate, directly or in collaboration with municipalities and/or independent experts, should collaborate with school leaders and teachers to develop a strategy for improvement. This would not represent a radical e</p&

35、gt;<p>　　?⊙Broaden the criteria for evaluating performance as suggested above; </p><p>　　?⊙Lower the threshold for initiating corrective action by identifying weak performance early (before schools sl

36、ip into the category of “very weak”), determine the reasons for underperformance, and specify enforceable remedies needed to improve performance, and set deadlines for progress. </p><p>　　Enhance for immigra

37、nt families as well as socio-economically disadvantaged families the means to exercise choice </p><p>　　The vitality and indeed the legitimacy of school choice policy hinges on families being active and info

38、rmed “education consumers”. It hinges as well on a nuanced notion of “choice” in which parents can do more than simply choose between alternative schools, but can also have a voice in the school of their choice. This sec

39、ond, more implicit facet of choice reflects well the fact that education is not a commodity to be taken or left as it is, and that education is a dynamic process that engages pa</p><p>　　Parents need to know

40、 what pathways are open for their children?s education, which schools offer which pathways, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of alternative schools. The Ministry should encourage and, if necessary, assist munici

41、palities in providing to all parents clear and timely information on school choice and enrolment, including the dates and procedures for school enrolment. Such information should be available in selected foreign language

42、s as well as Dutch, and should be access</p><p>　　OECD REVIEWS OF MIGRANT EDUCATION: NETHERLANDS </p><p>　　OECD PUBLISHING 2010</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　

43、　經(jīng)合組織對移民教育的評論</p><p>　　第二章 改善移民教育的政策</p><p>　　這章主要講述了在荷蘭改善移民教育的政策。政策領域包括：a）擇校平衡、公平和一體化 b）確保監(jiān)測和評價 c）確保盡早干預 d）教學環(huán)境的質(zhì)量 e）防止輟學 f）有效的伙伴關系和參與</p><p>　　摘 要：本章主要介紹在提高移民教育過程中政策領域的優(yōu)勢與挑戰(zhàn)。政

44、策選擇在三個不同的部分：對于整個系統(tǒng)的管理，包括擇校平衡、公平和一體化，并確保監(jiān)測和評估；早期兒童教育和關注（學前教育），以確保早期干預實施的有效性；而且對于學校和社區(qū)來說，包括教學環(huán)境的質(zhì)量，防止輟學和有效的伙伴關系和參與。在每一種情況下，報告指出了在每個領域中現(xiàn)有的優(yōu)勢與挑戰(zhàn)。</p><p><b>　　優(yōu)勢</b></p><p>　　政治上的支持以限制隔離和

45、集中教育</p><p>　　教育系統(tǒng)（廣義）在滿足移民的需要上，并鼓勵他們?nèi)谌肷鐣衅鸬搅岁P鍵和明確的作用。在一體化戰(zhàn)略的整體教育中起關鍵因素的是必須采取步驟，來減少教育中民族的集中與隔離。公共管理當局認為這是促進一體化必不可少的。如上所說，在荷蘭的移民學生的學校分布不均勻，特別是集中在某些社區(qū)學校，主要集中在四個地區(qū)學校（阿姆斯特丹，海牙，鹿特丹和烏德勒支）。這種集中和種族隔離的鏡子模式在一定程度上反應了居住

46、集中和分離的模式。因此，自2006年以來，學校議會，直轄市和托兒機構在法律上必須相互協(xié)商，以達到“學生在學校更加均衡分配”的目的。根據(jù)公共機構（例如市）學校，法律要求所有學生接受，如果有名額，鼓勵以公民身份參加。一些城市更進一步鼓勵學校設置了少數(shù)民族學生的比例限制。</p><p>　　建立有效地措施來解決學校種族的隔離</p><p>　　另一方面的公共政策，減少教育隔離是由國家知識中心

47、的混合學校來完成的，同時得到了教育部，文化部和科學部的支持。該中心的使命是傳播知識，以促進混合學校的素質(zhì)教育的行動來確定并考慮到地方干預，減少偏析。為了促進一體化，一些地方還出臺了其他措施。由鹿特丹市組織的審查小組，當選擇孩子的學校時，提供給家長一次學校巴士旅游的機會。這樣做被認為是一種打開父母的思想并考慮選擇當?shù)貙W校的有效方式，在游覽過程中相互協(xié)定。</p><p>　　荷蘭當局以及當?shù)卣巡扇〈胧?，建立更?/p>

48、的混合小學，同時保留選擇和自主權。有計劃地促進移民學生和本地荷蘭學生之間的互動。為了更好地確定哪些措施在實際中真正起作用，11個城市展開了實驗。這些實驗研究各種措施的有效性，例如中央登記注冊的學生與來自各種各樣背景的學生的更好的融合。</p><p><b>　　挑戰(zhàn)</b></p><p>　　確保移民學生獲得高質(zhì)量的基礎教育</p><p>

49、;　　就如何履行教育和教育途徑上，非西方移民學生和在荷蘭本地的同齡人上有著重大和持續(xù)的差異。對于非西方移民學生來說，在12歲時進入不同類型的學校，并且獲得優(yōu)質(zhì)的基礎教育是至關重要的。審查小組無法獲得學校的具體數(shù)據(jù)，這些數(shù)據(jù)將有可能表現(xiàn)出移民教育的相對薄弱環(huán)節(jié)是在入學率上。雖然沒有明確的證據(jù)表明，人口密度對教育行為有負面影響。然而，移民主要集中在關注辦學質(zhì)量的一些城市里卻是事實。總體而言，超過十分之一的荷蘭學校表現(xiàn)不佳，還有待提高。在高密

50、度的移民城市中，表現(xiàn)欠佳的學校大量涌現(xiàn)。2007年，在四大城市（阿姆斯特丹、海牙、鹿特丹、烏德勒支）中，14.1%的小學被列為表現(xiàn)欠佳。僅在阿姆斯特丹只有五分之一的學校不屬于這一類別，雖然在弱勢社區(qū)的學校，這一比例為16.9%，相比之下略有下降。還有證據(jù)表明，在弱勢社區(qū)的學校由于缺乏高質(zhì)量的教學人員，導致學校的教學環(huán)境等受到影響。</p><p>　　在荷蘭語境中，在決定學校的教育內(nèi)容、教學方法、招聘和評價教師上

51、有極高的自治權的學校里，教育督查起著至關重要的作用，以確保教學質(zhì)量。教育督查根據(jù)學校存在的優(yōu)勢與弱勢來提供監(jiān)督安排。教育質(zhì)量非常薄弱的學校，要接受嚴格的監(jiān)督安排，并給予兩年內(nèi)提高質(zhì)量。在這一時期的結(jié)束階段，教育督查要進行“質(zhì)量調(diào)查”，以確定學校是否實現(xiàn)了質(zhì)量提高。如果效果不明顯或沒達到預期，則有可能額外增加年份，但只有在能夠達到現(xiàn)實期望的情況下。有92所小學進行了此類調(diào)查。2009年1月，在7199所小學中有125所被認為“非常薄弱”。

52、這其中的125所小學，質(zhì)量調(diào)查顯示有9所小學質(zhì)量沒有明顯提高。有6所小學被額外增加一年，試圖來提高教學質(zhì)量。對于其中的三所學校，督查小組并沒有給予現(xiàn)實的期望。</p><p><b>　　政策選擇</b></p><p>　　荷蘭政府已明確指出，“隔離但平等”的學校的政策不是一種明智的選擇。與此同時，學校擁有選擇的自主權與住宅集中的模式，很難保證所有學校均衡招生。這就

53、必須確保所有學校都有高質(zhì)量的教育。第一步應該是更加緊密地監(jiān)督和加強眾多薄弱學校的教學質(zhì)量。第二步應該是確保移民家庭更能夠行使其權利，更有效地選擇學校。通過識別教學質(zhì)量欠佳的學校，要么提高其質(zhì)量，要不就是關閉它們，來提高移民學校的質(zhì)量。</p><p>　　學校缺乏自主權和選擇權，就其本身來說，不利于實現(xiàn)教育的良好和公平。事實上，最近的系統(tǒng)級變量分析顯示，當有很強的指導意見時，往往能取得期望的結(jié)果。一個教室的自治水

54、平高度與更好的，更公平的評價結(jié)果是緊密聯(lián)系在一起的。在加強學校自治的十年中，荷蘭政府采取了一系列措施，現(xiàn)在政府應該更加注重轉(zhuǎn)變和互補，明確學校的共同質(zhì)量目標，并確保滿足它們的需要。這一戰(zhàn)略的目的不應是削減有關學校的選擇權，而應該利用教育的高度自治系統(tǒng)，提供多元化的學習機會，從而提高質(zhì)量，實現(xiàn)共同目標。這將更好地確保做出的選擇是與學習效率和公平的優(yōu)質(zhì)的學習機會是相匹配的。</p><p>　　不能因為領導人的權威而

55、忽視監(jiān)督和保證學校教學質(zhì)量的重要性，目前督查評估學校的教學質(zhì)量，而學校領導負責評估個別老師。當一個特定學校的教學質(zhì)量被認為很差時，督查工作與學校制定改善計劃，然后跟進，看看是否發(fā)生改善。這類似于英格蘭的督查模式，那里的督查通過與學校合作，擴大了其狹窄的監(jiān)測作用。在荷蘭，提高教學質(zhì)量的目標都需要明確與檢驗。</p><p>　　為了提高共同標準和性能參考水平，政府將提供更有力的學校質(zhì)量監(jiān)管，以奠定良好的基礎。這些都

56、需要把明確的標準納入教育督察上，以此來監(jiān)控教學質(zhì)量和個別學校教育成果的公平性。例如，曾經(jīng)建立了面向全體學生的基本能力水平的測試，這些可用來評價學校的表現(xiàn)如何尊重所有群體，并明確執(zhí)行能力評估學校不同群體之間的績效差距。與此同時，這對于檢測不同學生群體學校入學率是有益的，可以確保學校不要試圖通過提高或者維持不包括特定分組的質(zhì)量性能。</p><p>　　關于學校注重質(zhì)量的做法與其他國家注重發(fā)展的做法是一致的。在美國，

57、聯(lián)邦立法中規(guī)定對來自不同社會、經(jīng)濟和種族的學生給予適當?shù)谋壤龍?zhí)行，來確保對每所學校負責。同時，隨著時間的推移，目標也隨之上升。在丹麥，市政府準備針對個別學校的表現(xiàn)，對基礎教育措施、報告質(zhì)量負責。</p><p>　　但是，在反饋的基礎上改善的戰(zhàn)略措施，雖然必要，效果卻并不顯著。一旦知道反饋的缺點，就要尋求一個強有力的補救方法。當有任何特殊的群體（移民或弱勢學生）的表現(xiàn)不佳，教育督察直接與直轄市或獨立的專家合作，應

58、立即與學校領導和老師制定改進策略。但是這并不代表教育督察的職責就是保證監(jiān)督的整體質(zhì)量，幫助表現(xiàn)欠佳的學校制定改進戰(zhàn)略。教育的督察的作用需要加強:</p><p>　　1、拓寬性能評定標準</p><p>　　2、降低門檻，確定業(yè)績不佳的原因，并指定需要執(zhí)行的補救方法，以提高性能，并限期糾正行動進展。</p><p>　　加強對移民家庭以及社會經(jīng)濟弱勢家庭的手段選擇&

59、lt;/p><p>　　學校選擇的政策取決于家庭的活力和“教育消費者”的家庭合法性。這也取決于另一個“選擇”中，家長可以在更多的學校之中進行選擇，而且可以表達自己的心聲。第二點，比較含蓄的選擇也反映了一個事實，即教育不是可以隨拿隨放的商品，因為教育是一個動態(tài)的過程。這些想法在荷蘭并不陌生。荷蘭教育系統(tǒng)的活力在很大程度上是事實，它提供了家庭在行使選擇上有很大的自由，并且由于其高度分散化，為當?shù)氐睦嫦嚓P者，包括家長相當

60、大的空間，成為影響子女教育的戰(zhàn)略決策。但是，對于移民者來說效果并不理想。即使在公共當局設法扭轉(zhuǎn)了表現(xiàn)不佳的學校，但是如果家長在學校之間無法作出明智的選擇，如果他們不能清楚表達自己的心聲，那么學校選擇制度將無法充分發(fā)揮其潛力。</p><p>　　家長需要知道什么途徑適合子女，學校提供的途徑是什么，學校的長處和弱點是什么。教育部應該鼓勵，如果有必要，協(xié)助各家長提供明確和有關學校的選擇及報名的信息，包括日期和城市學校

61、入學手續(xù)。這些信息應在選定的外國語言以及荷蘭語版本中出現(xiàn)，以方便識字有限的家長。例如，建立地方協(xié)商平臺，以便建立更公平，更具包容性的招生政策，包括共同商定的日期開始招生。法律的可能性增加了社會經(jīng)濟背景更多樣化的組合。雖然沒有法律約束力，但是這些地方協(xié)定是一個“軟法”。在奧地利，教育部建立了家長的DVD，這就是由非政府組織分發(fā)的。該DVD通知家長許多不同的問題，比如關于孩子的教育問題，如何與其他家長交流溝通以及現(xiàn)有舉措。該部還出版了不同語