Study 2: Barriers to the Participation of Socially Disadvantaged Students in STEM Programs

February, 2014

Social Disadvantage

• Ethnic minorities (Armenian living in Samtskhe-Javakheti, Azerbaijanian living in Kvemo-Kartli)-about 10-12% of population speak other language than Georgian

• Low income (Students from Families who were ranked below the 70 000 point by SSA)-25% of population defined as poor of which 64% live in rural communities

• High mountain areas –about 7-8% of population live in high mountain area

• Others (includes displaced families)-20,000 of population internally displaced persons

Defining the socially disadvantaged in the scopes of the study

Main Massages

• Socially disadvantaged students leave school with fewer STEM skills than socially advantaged students

• The quantity and quality of schools available for students from some socially disadvantaged groups are not equal to those available for socially advantaged students

• Poverty, parents and culture are important determinants of schooling outcomes for students from socially disadvantaged groups

• Few socially disadvantaged students continue to post secondary education

• The GoG has taken steps to improve education for socially disadvantaged students, but more actions may be necessary

• Employers have low experience to employ social disadvantages students or support special programs for their development.

Message 1: Socially disadvantaged students acquire and leave school with fewer STEM skills than socially advantaged students

• Grade 12 CAT -2011

• Grade 12 CAT - 2012

• UEE 2009-2012 years

Year Group Mathematic Biology Chemistry Physics Geography

2011

Ethnic Minorities 6.06 5.85 6.56 5.81 6.77

Others 6.36 6.69 6.83 6.5 7.15

2012

Ethnic Minorities 6.4 6.21 6.85 5.83 7.09

Others 6.92 6.71 7.2 6.67 7.31

Ethnic minority students score lower in CAT STEM subjects as compared with other students

Average CAT scores in STEM subjects, 2011-2012

Ethnic minority girls outperform boys in most of CAT STEM subjects

Average Scores on tests of Math and science

Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.396.67

7.04

6.36

7.15

6.236.4 6.53

6.37

7

Girls Boys

Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.84 6.87

7.33

6.58

7.3

6.68

6.26

6.85

6.24

7.18

Girls Boys2011 2012

Average CAT scores in STEM subjects in 2011-2012

Low income family students underperform those from non-low income families in all CAT STEM subjects

Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.28

6.96 6.82 6.847.04

6.89

7.37 7.25 7.22

7.59

Low income family Non low income family

Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.756.96 7.08

6.867.097.21

7.36 7.437.28

7.55

Low income familyNon low income family

2011 2012

Low income family student girls outperform boys in most of CAT STEM subjects

Low income family girl students show better results than boys in CAT STEM subjects

Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.756.96 7.08

6.867.097.21

7.36 7.437.28

7.55

Low income family Non low income family

Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.756.96 7.08

6.867.097.21

7.36 7.437.28

7.55

Low income familyNon low income family

2011 2012

Year Group Mathematic Biology Chemistry Physics Geography

2011

Mountain Dweller 6.31 6.53 6.78 6.37 7.07

Others 6.86 7.12 7.22 6.93 7.55

2012

Mountain Dweller 6.76 6.55 7.08 6.4 7.24

Others 7.19 7.03 7.41 6.99 7.51

Mountain dweller students score lower in CAT STEM subjects as compared with other students

Average CAT scores in STEM subjects, 2011-2012

Average scores in General Skills for ethnic minority students, UEE 2011-2012

Ethnic minority students underperform in General Skills compared to other students

2011 20120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

138.37 138.98

150.28 150.26

Ethnic minorities (Kvemo-Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti )Others

Average STEM scores in UEE 2011-2012

Ethnic minority students underperform in STEM subjects at UEE compared to other students

Math Biology Chemistry Physics0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

139.93 142.61 145

158150.12 150.12 150.06 150.07

Ethnic minorities (Kvemo-Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti )Others

მათემატიკა ბიოლოგია ქიმია ფიზიკა0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

139.93 142.61 145

158150.12 150.12 150.06 150.07

Ethnic minorities (Kvemo-Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti )Others

Socially disadvantaged students find STEM subjects very hard

• Socially disadvantaged students find Math, Physics very hard (girls less so than

boys)

• Students remember and understand better the topics when the teacher used

some practical exercises or lab. work

• Some students indicated that they have laboratories although the teacher do

not use it

• 1 year Bridging Program is popular, though information is not fully available

Main message 2: The quantity and quality of schools available for students from some socially disadvantaged groups are not equal to those available for socially advantaged students

• Availability of upper secondary grades

• Infrastructural disadvantage

• Teacher and teaching quality

• About 30% of mountain schools do not offer upper secondary grades (10-12)

• 25% of village schools do not offer the upper grades compared to 5% in urban areas

• 2/3 of Azeri schools offer upper secondary grades, for Georgian language schools it

is 80%

Schools often lack upper secondary grades

• Old textbooks, some in Russian language

• Lack of practical teaching-The school students indicated that experiments and

practical exercises were used most frequently in physics (40.8%), chemistry (49% )

and biology (32.7%.)

• Lack of modern teaching facilities such as laboratories or computers-42.8% of

school students state that their classrooms are not equipped with modern services

and equipment such as computers, internet, etc. only in 38.1% of students agreed

that their laboratory is equipped with modern equipment. The lowest percentage of

using practical exercises was informatics; only of the students had this kind of

experience. 2%

School infrastructure is often poor

Teacher and teaching quality is poorer for socially disadvantaged students

020406080

Teacher attitudes

• 58% of teachers surveyed said that there was no difference between learning

socially disadvantaged children and the others!- 76.2% of teachers think that the

socially disadvantaged students do not experience barriers to success. This indicates that the

teachers have a low understanding of what kind of problems the socially disadvantaged students

are faced with

• Teachers report that parental engagement in socially disadvantaged students’

education could be better- The majority of teachers think that parents could be more

involved in their socially disadvantaged children’s’ education

Students think that the teacher is crucial in their learning

Quotes from FGD discussions:

• “when I love the teacher I love the subject too”

• “I believe when the teacher gives me some advice. She is clever and my

favourite. She advises me to apply for economic because I study math well”

Main message 3:Poverty, parents and culture are important determinants of schooling outcomes for students from socially disadvantaged groups

• 50% of socially disadvantaged students in the survey were influenced by their

families; in the focus groups the % was much higher, approaching 100%

• Very few females in the focus group for socially disadvantaged students would

not obey their parents’ wishes even if these conflicted with their own

Main message 4: Few socially disadvantaged students continue to post secondary education

Share socially vulnerable applicants, who passed UEE in 2011-2012 (definition provided by SSA)

2011 20120.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

8.0 8.5

82.0

91.5

1 Socially vulnerable 2 Not vulnerable

Schools provide little career guidance to students

• The evidence of the survey was that socially disadvantaged students did receive

more career guidance than the others (but not for TVET), but there was no

evidence that it was any more beneficial than the lower level of guidance

received by the population as a whole

HEI 78.6%

TVET 26.2%

Bigger number of HEI applicants received information regarding admission process

• There was a big difference in

information about institutions and

admissions for those aiming for HEI

and those aiming for TVET

HEI 85.7%

TVET 14.3%

Bigger number of HEI applicants received information regarding scholarships

• There was a big difference in information about scholarships for those aiming for HEI and those aiming for TVET

• 52% of Socially Disadvantaged students say they could not study without the scholarship

Year Frequency Percent

2011

Do not pass 172 29.0

Academic program 27 4.5

Preparation in Georgian language

380 64.0

Professional Program 15 2.5

Total 594 100.0

2012

Do not pass 201 27.8

Academic program 22 3.0

Preparation in Georgian language 499 69.1

Professional Program 0 0

Total 722 100.0

Only a few Ethnic minority students pass the UEE and enroll directly in academic and professional programs

Main message 5: The GoG has taken steps to improve education for socially disadvantaged students, but more actions may be necessary

• School facility rehabilitation - the school facility rehabilitation efforts currently

underway by GoG and by GoG with support from MCC

• Language “bridging” program

• Scholarships for TVET and HEI

About two-thirds of ethnic minority university applicants enroll in Georgian language program

Language minority students enrolled in 1 year Georgian language course

All Ethnic minority applicants Ethnic minority applicants enrolled in Georgian language program0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

594

380

732

499

2011 2012

Georgian 1 year language program and professions after it

But only 20% of those who enrol in the “Bridging” course are reported to enter the University programs

Government Scholarships are provided for both: TVET and HEI students

• The highest number of socially disadvantaged students applying for scholarship is within the category of the low-income families: 42% in 2009, 44.9% in 2010, 37.2% in 2011 and 43.9% in 2012.

• The percentage of the funding of the students from low-income families is not stable and there are significant differences between years: 8.5% in 2009, 52.3% in 2010, 18.7% in 2011 and 16.7% in 2012.

• The percentage of funding of the students in the low-income category is the lowest in all years except 2010 compared to other categories.

Scholarships are important for socially disadvantaged students

• 52% of socially disadvantaged students enrolled in university programs say they could not study without the scholarship

• Other special efforts may be necessary: • Only one-third of TVETs have special programs of support for socially disadvantaged

students, other than scholarships• No university STEM faculties have special programs of support for socially

disadvantaged students, other than scholarships• Only one-fourth of university STEM faculties report having scholarships for socially

disadvantaged students

Main message 6: Employers do not have special programs or benefits for socially disadvantaged

• Socially disadvantaged students do not think there will be any

discrimination in finding employment

• Employers do not have special programs for socially disadvantaged

students, neither do they see the need or know how they would do it

Recommendation: An organised plan to enable socially disadvantaged students to study on an equal basis with all other students

– A clear identification of the problems socially disadvantaged students face in STEM subjects– An in-service teacher training program to make teachers aware of the issues and develop plans

to address these– A scoping of the need for any enrichment teaching that socially disadvantaged students may

needin order to achieve better results in STEM– A plan to upgrade school facilities over time (e.g. Labs, computer rooms and etc.) and

implementation of appropriate teaching tools– Better information about scholarships to be available in all areas in a planned and organised

way– Socially disadvantaged ethnic minority students need stronger language support – Improve career guidance (see Study 3)– Special programs for socially disadvantaged students at TVET & HEI– Program for employers to promote their Corporate Social Responsibility to socially

disadvantaged people– Improved data bases for social disadvantage– In general, increase delivery of the information thought pubic communications means