【正文】 hese to school boards (OECD, 2020). OECD REVIEWS OF MIGRANT EDUCATION: NETHERLANDS OECD PUBLISHING 2020 譯文： 經(jīng)合組織對(duì)移民教育的評(píng)論 第二章 改善移民教育的政策 這章主要講述了在荷蘭改善移民教育的政策。這種集中和種族隔離的鏡子模式在一定程度上反應(yīng)了居住集中和分離的模式。這樣做被認(rèn)為是一種打開(kāi)父母的思想并考慮選擇當(dāng)?shù)貙W(xué)校的有效方式，在游覽過(guò)程中相互協(xié)定。雖然沒(méi)有明確的證據(jù)表明，人口密度對(duì)教育行為有負(fù)面影響。教育督查根據(jù)學(xué)校存在的優(yōu)勢(shì)與弱勢(shì)來(lái)提 供監(jiān)督安排。對(duì)于其中的三所學(xué)校，督查小組并沒(méi)有給予現(xiàn)實(shí)的期望。事實(shí)上，最近的系統(tǒng)級(jí)變量分析顯示，當(dāng)有很強(qiáng)的指導(dǎo)意見(jiàn)時(shí)，往往能取得期望的 結(jié)果。在荷蘭，提高教學(xué)質(zhì)量的目標(biāo)都需要明確與檢驗(yàn)。在丹麥，市政府準(zhǔn)備針對(duì)個(gè)別學(xué)校的表現(xiàn)，對(duì)基礎(chǔ)教育措施、報(bào)告質(zhì)量負(fù)責(zé)。第二點(diǎn)，比較含蓄的選擇也反映了一個(gè)事實(shí)，即教育不是可以隨拿隨放的商品，因?yàn)榻逃且粋€(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的過(guò)程。例如，建立地方協(xié)商平臺(tái)，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(kāi)始招生。 《經(jīng)合組織對(duì)移民教育的評(píng)論：荷蘭 》，經(jīng)合組織出版社（ 2020） 。教育部應(yīng)該鼓勵(lì)，如果有必要，協(xié)助各家長(zhǎng)提供明確和有關(guān)學(xué)校的選擇及報(bào)名的信息，包括日期和城市學(xué)校入學(xué)手續(xù)。 加強(qiáng)對(duì)移民家庭以及社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)弱勢(shì)家庭的手段選擇 學(xué)校選擇的政策取決于家庭的活力和“教育消費(fèi)者”的家庭合法性。在美國(guó)，聯(lián)邦立法中規(guī)定對(duì)來(lái)自不同社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和種族的學(xué)生給予適當(dāng)?shù)谋壤龍?zhí)行，來(lái)確保對(duì)每所學(xué)校負(fù)責(zé)。當(dāng) 一個(gè)特定學(xué)校的教學(xué)質(zhì)量被認(rèn)為很差時(shí)，督查工作與學(xué)校制定改善計(jì)劃，然后跟進(jìn)，看看是否發(fā)生改善。通過(guò)識(shí)別教學(xué)質(zhì)量欠佳的學(xué)校，要么提高其質(zhì)量，要不就是關(guān)閉它們，來(lái)提高移民學(xué)校的質(zhì)量。這其中的 125 所小學(xué)，質(zhì)量調(diào)查顯示有 9 所小學(xué)質(zhì)量沒(méi)有明顯提高。還有證據(jù)表明，在弱勢(shì)社區(qū)的學(xué)校由于缺乏高質(zhì)量的教學(xué)人員，導(dǎo)致學(xué)校的教學(xué)環(huán)境等受到影響。對(duì)于非西方移民學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)，在 12 歲時(shí)進(jìn)入不同類型的學(xué)校，并且獲得優(yōu)質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)教育是至關(guān)重要的。為了促進(jìn)一體化，一些地方還出臺(tái)了其他措施。公共管理當(dāng)局認(rèn)為這是促進(jìn)一體化必不可少的。 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 %. There is also evidence that the quality 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 teachers, the Education Inspectorate plays a pivotal role in quality assurance (Box ). 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 survey” to determine whether the school has achieved adequate quality. If this is not the case, an extra year may be allowed, but only when there is realistic expectation of improvement. The Inspectorate has performed 92 such surveys on primary schools. In January 2020, 125 of the 7 199 primary schools were judged “very weak” (including 17 schools for special primary education). Among the 125 very weak primary schools in 2020, the quality improvement surveys showed in nine cases that improvement was insufficient. Six of these schools were allowed the extra year to try to improve quality. For three of them, the Inspectorate had no realistic expectation of improvement and administrative procedures were started. Policy options 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 residential 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 closely overseeing and strengthening the numerous weak as well as rare very weak A second step (of equally high priority) should be to ensure that immigrant families are more able to exercise their right to choose schools more effectively. Raise the quality of schooling for immigrant students by identifying underperforming schools and either improving them or closing them School autonomy and choice are not, in and of themselves, bad for achieving good and fair education outes. Indeed, recent analyses of system level variables suggest that when there is strong guidance regarding desired outes (. through centrally administered external examinations) a high degree of