Search results

Large-Scale Assessments in Germany have shown that language-minority students as well as students with special educational needs (SEN) perform significantly less well than language-majority students or students without SEN. This performance gap may be related to a limited accessibility of the tests. One way to test whether assessments allow all students to demonstrate their knowledge in a comparable way is the analysis of differential item functioning (DIF). In this chapter, we evaluate DIF coefficients in order to examine group-specific difficulties in reading comprehension for language-minority students and students with SEN in the German National Educational Assessment.

In the first study, we investigate the assessment of reading literacy of language-minority learners and German monolinguals from low-SES families. We found only a few items with moderate DIF and no items with large DIF. This indicates that the reading assessment was equally valid for second-language learners and German monolingual students.

In our second study, we report about the psychometrically successful development of easy and more accessible reading tasks for students with SEN. Further analyses showed that DIF predominantly occurred in items that captured contents that are not necessarily covered in literacy instruction targeted at students with SEN.

The purpose of this paper is to broadly describe and provide insight into the national dialogue in the USA concerning accountability for educational results in academic institutions.

The approach takes the form of a thorough survey of the key questions, current issues, and organizational players in this national dialogue.

Policy makers and educators should use the present opportunity to work together, focusing not on narrow one‐size‐fits‐all measures but on the improvement of a new generation of complementary approaches.

The paper presents a clear articulation and discussion of the key questions that are driving the national dialogue on this topic.

This paper aims to present the “Vulnerability Sourcebook” methodology, a standardised framework for the assessment of climate vulnerability and risk in the context of adaptation planning. The Vulnerability Sourcebook has been developed for the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and has been applied in more than twenty countries worldwide.

It is based on a participative development of so-called climate impact chains, which are an analytical concept to better understand, systemise and prioritise the climate factors as well as environmental and socio-economic factors that drive climate related threats, vulnerabilities and risks in a specific system. Impact chains serve as the backbone for an operational climate vulnerability assessment with indicators based on quantitative approaches (data, models) combined with expert assessments. In this paper, the authors present the concept and applications of the original Vulnerability Sourcebook, published in 2015, which was based on the IPCC AR4 concept of climate vulnerability. In Section 6 of this paper, the authors report how this concept has been adapted to the current IPCC AR5 concept of climate risks.

The application of the Sourcebook is demonstrated in three case studies in Bolivia, Pakistan and Burundi. The results indicate that particularly the participative development of impact chains helped with generating a common picture on climate vulnerabilities and commitment for adaptation planning within a region. The mixed methods approach (considering quantitative and qualitative information) allows for a flexible application in different contexts. Challenges are mainly the availability of climate (change) and socio-economic data, as well as the transparency of value-based decisions in the process.

The Vulnerability Sourcebook offers a standardised framework for the assessment of climate vulnerability and risk in the context of adaptation planning.

The purpose of this paper is to present the risk of the non-financial sector in Croatia concerning the threats of money laundering through the prism of national and supranational risk assessment. In addition to a brief overview of the financial sector, the specifics of the non-financial sector have been highlighted. This paper aims to emphasize the peculiarities of the non-financial sector, focusing on the consequences of arbitrary application on the right to professional secrecy and independence.

Specifics of the national risk assessment in Croatia have been analyzed using deductive and inductive methods. To provide an overview of the non-financial sector, the risk assessment at the supranational level has been discussed and compared with the national one. Particular attention has been paid to the areas of increased risk.

The effectiveness of risk assessment depends on several factors such as the characteristic of the sector being observed, the specifics of each profession or business, changes at the level of awareness-raising and efficient and coherent supervision. Most deficiencies were observed in the area of beneficial ownership identification, conducting due diligence, awareness of the risk exposure and permanent education.

By recognizing the risk profile faced by the non-financial sector, this paper seeks to point out their role as “Gatekeepers” that is far from being negligible. By analyzing the risk of money laundering in Croatia, the tendencies of harmonization with international standards are pointed out along with the occurrences indicated by the practice.

Lawrence Ingvarson is a principal research fellow at the Australian Council for Educational Research. Prior to taking up his present part-time position, he was the research director of the Teaching and Leadership Program at ACER. He began his career as a science and mathematics teacher, teaching in West Australia, Scotland, and England before undertaking further studies at the University of London. He has held academic positions at the University of Stirling in Scotland and Monash University in Melbourne.

The collision between climate science and climate policy was strikingly manifested during the Bush–Cheney Administration. Based on both the documentary record and direct observation, this chapter reviews multiple means by which the Administration controlled the flow of climate science communication from federal scientists and research programs when Administration officials saw a need to conform science communication with Administration politics. Government secrecy imposed via information control was evident, for example, in the editing of climate program reports; the suppression of official reference to an existing major climate impacts assessment; selective application of control over contacts between government scientists and the media; alteration of congressional testimony; shutting down of government Web sites; “stealth” release of reports to minimize public attention; and concealing a Supreme Court-mandated scientifically based draft document that would have triggered regulation of greenhouse gases to protect public welfare. With these political interventions, the response from the ranks of federal career science managers and research scientists varied, ranging from open criticism, anonymous leaks, and whistleblowing to silence, self-censorship, and active complicity.

Child impact statements are a tool for assessing the potential impact of policy, provision, legislation etc on children. Although now predominantly based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the concept preceded this Convention. This article is based on a literature review and a series of face‐to‐face and telephone interviews with relevant Irish civil and public servants and NGOs. It sets out the rationale for child impact statements and the experience of using them in Sweden, the UK, Flanders and Ireland, before highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in existing models. It then presents a number of difficulties with the approach as a means of improving children's well‐being and argues that there is insufficient evidence to support their widespread introduction as a primary means of achieving positive policy outcomes for children.

This paper presents a moderated discussion on popular misconceptions, benefits and limitations of International Large-Scale Assessment (ILSA) programs, clarifying how ILSA results could be more appropriately interpreted and used in public policy contexts in the USA and elsewhere in the world.

To bring key issues, points-of-view and recommendations on the theme to light, the method used is a “moderated policy discussion”. Nine commentaries were invited to represent voices of leading ILSA scholars/researchers and measurement experts, juxtaposed against views of prominent leaders of education systems in the USA that participate in ILSA programs. The discussion is excerpted from a recent blog published by Education Week. It is moderated with introductory remarks from the guest editor and concluding recommendations from an ILSA researcher who did not participate in the original blog. References and author biographies are presented at the end of the article.

Together, the commentaries address historical, methodological, socio-political and policy issues surrounding ILSA programs vis-à-vis the major goals of education and larger societal concerns. Authors offer recommendations for improving the international studies themselves and for making reports more transparent for educators and the public to facilitate greater understanding of their purposes, meanings and policy implications.

When assessment policies are implemented from the top down, as is often the case with ILSA program participation, educators and leaders in school systems tend to be left out of the conversation. This article is intended to foster a productive two-way dialogue among key ILSA actors that can serve as a stepping-stone to more concerted policy actions within and across national education systems.

Education reform and policy formation have become national priorities in all of the Gulf States that make up the six member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This move toward developing and sustaining effective education provision for the national citizenry gained greater importance in the wake of the Arab Spring movement that swept across the region. Although not as directly impacted as some other Arab nations further north, the leadership of Gulf States recognized that the large youth demographic in the region needed greater education and employment options, partly to stem the tide of unrest in their own nations. Many Gulf States, including the Kingdom of Bahrain, were already looking overseas for education models and systems that they could “buy-in” and implement in local schools. One such provider that seemed attractive to Bahrain, among others, was Singapore, which is widely hailed in the Gulf region as a model of a high-performing, global economy and education system. Yet importation of foreign models, with little or no accommodations made for local needs and cultures leads to an uncomfortable “grafting” of systems that seem out of place. This, coupled with the desire by Gulf States to take part in international benchmarking exercises, such as TIMSS, has created an awkward skewing in many educational practices and processes in Bahrain and other GCC states. This chapter, using Bahrain as a case study, will explore the regional importation of systems and models and the effect that participation in international assessments is having on localized education practices.