Gifted Education In Hungary – Arany János Project
Anikó Fehérvári
ATEE, 23-25 October, 2017 Dubrovnik
Topic
• Inequality in education (literature review)
• Hungarian situation, national and international context
• Arany János Project: history, earlier research, research question, methods
• Findings: family backgrounds, effectiveness, cost- benefits analysis
• Conclusions and new ways
Inequality Literature
• Numerous theories, several research, rich history from Coleman’s(1966) research to present day
• Bourdieu (1974., 1978) social inequality = school inequality
• Boudon (1974); Treiman (1970): impact of education (qualification)
• All theories stress the role of EDUCATION.
Hungarian situation
• PISA, PIRLS, TIMSS, National Basic Competence Survey: family background has a strong impact on effectiveness
• PISA-test: social background can be accounted for 47 points of difference (39 point OECD mean)
• ESCHI is responsible for the test scores of 23% (17% OECD mean)
• High proportion is underperforming (27-28%); low proportion is gifted students (5-6%)
• Resilience index is poor in HU (4,1%) (OECD, 2013.)
• The data hasn’t changed since 2000.
The reasons
• The learning paths are separeted at an early stage:
the 10-year-old students, the 12-year-old students and the 14-year-old students choose secondary school (8-grades, 6-grades and 4,5-grades
secondary school)
• The students' performance are based on great differences between schools.
• The difference of achivement is based on the difference of social background.
• Hungarian school system increases the differences rooted in the social background.
About Arany János Project
• Arany János Project started in 2000.
• 3 subprojects – 3 target groups (disadvantaged 1. subprogram/more disadvantaged 2. subprogram/the most disadvantaged 3. subprogram)
• Aims: to enter higher education of disadvantaged/gifted or to give graduation and professional qualification
• Participants: 42 schools and dormitories, 4000 students
• Curriculum: extra year (motivation, self-efficiency, arts, learning to learn)
• The role of dormitories is important.
About the research
• 1. research in 2005-2006: overall inquiry (all students and
schools/quantitative and qualitative methods: questionnaires, interviews) Research question: Who is targeted in the project?
• 2. research in 2014-2015: special inquiry (cost-effectiveness and tracking research) Research question: Does the project achieve its purpose?
• 3. research in 2017-2018: overall inquiry (all students and
schools/quantitative and qualitative methods: questionnaires, focus groups, interviews) Research question: How does the program
contribute to students’ resilience?
Findings
Family background, students’ effectiveness, cost-benefit analyses
Family background: Roma participation rates
38,4 30,5
0 10 20 30 40 50
2. subprogram 3. subprogram
Roma, Gipsy The rate of roma students is ten percent in an average Hungarian school.
Family background: parents’ education
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2. subprogram, dad 3. subprogram, dad 2. subprogram, mom 2. subprogram, mom
8 9 10
9
43 60
61 68
36 19
19 16
7 4
7 3
0 0
1 0
6 8
2 4
below primary school primary school vocational training school high school
university/collage not knows 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
dad mom
9 18
47 28
32 41
9 12
3 2
primary school vocational school high school university, college not knows
1. subprogram
The average parents have at least vocational training school or high school education in Hungary.
Family background: parents’ employment
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
dad mom
70 57
30,0 43,0
works not works
0 10 20 30 40 50 unemployed 2. subprogram
unemployed 3. subprogram
48 38
Family background
Parents with low level
education Cultural capital is low.
The proportion of active parents is high, but there is
a high risk of
unemployment, the ratio of in deep poverty between
10-20%
The proportion of Roma students is high.
0 20 40 60 80 100 driving license
ECDL exam B2 (language) exam C1 exam enter to HE drop-out HE
87
98 65
4
89 6
Students’ effectiveness
The 1. subprogram has reached its goals:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. subprogram 2. subprogram 3. subprogram
11
22 28
58
49
51
22 19
15
1 1
1
8 9
5
it is unlikely that you will continue to study without the program improved the chances of further education
did not affect the chances of further education it has hindered learning chances
not knows
Students’ evaluation
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. subprogram 2. subprogram 3. subprogram
10
36
35
42
9
29
14
16
16
4
51
11 5
24
Vocational training school High school ISCED 5 Bachelor degree Master degree PhD
What is the highest qualification you would like
achive in your life?
Cost-benefit
analysis
Cost-benefit analysis is a decision-support tool
It calculates
• the costs of the implementation
• the effects of implementation
• direct and indirect
• intended and unintented
• It helps to show the usefulness of the program (net, social)
• The question is: from whose point of view we analyse the costs and benefits:
Individual State
budget Society
The different stages of the cost-benefit analysis
Type The implementation of program
Aim The quality of
information
Ex ante Before Is the program worth
starting?
external information, estimates,
forecasts
In medias res During Will we continue it or
change it?
estimates, general costs, facts
Ex post Afterwards Was it useful, did you
meet your goals and expectations?
facts,
measurements, calculations
Findings of the cost-benefit analysis
Individual benefits: HUF 46 - 58 million (149 - 186.000 Euro) in net profits for life
Social Benefits: the returns are greatly influenced by the effectiveness of the
program, but the budget is well prepared only if at least 20% of the students could have access to higher education or have obtained a degree with the help of the program.
We can state that the program is a good investment for society only if the
necessary expenditures are recovered, that is the selection process ensures that at least every fith student in talent management goes on to HE as a direct result of the program.
If this success rate is below 20%, the success of the program can be improved by improving the selection mechanism of the target group's 8th grade pupils.
Conclusions
• The appropriate target groups will be included in the Arany János Program.
• Both students and families were motivated to acquire secondary or tertiary education.
• Arany János Program offers the chance of successful group mobility.
• The program brings both social and individual benefits.
Further research directions
• Focus on students’ resiliance:
• What kind of family, school and individual factors help the student to acquire the qualification?
• Is there a difference in the type of disadvantages?
• Research methods: questionnaires, interviews, focus groups
• Aim is: the education policy could use research findings,
and could improve Arany János Project.
Reference
• Coleman, James et al. (1966): Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington DC.: Government Printing Office
• Boudon, R. (1974): Education, opportunity and social inequality. New York: Wiley.
• Bourdieu, Pierre (1978): A társadalmi egyenlőtlenségek újratermelődése, Budapest: Gondolat
• Treiman, Donald (1970): Industrialization and Social Stratification. In Laumann, O.
E. (ed): Social stratification: research and theory for the 1970’s. Indianapolis, New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
• OECD (2013): PISA 2012 Results: Excellence Through Equity. Paris: OECD
