Ireland's UN SDGs 2019 - Report on Indicators for Goal 4 Quality Education

In sixth class the trend continued with more boys (6.2%) than girls (4%) with reading proficiency levels below Level 1.  In sixth class 14.8% of girls were reading at Level 4 compared to 13.8% boys.  See Table 1.2.

Comparisons of scores in the NAERM 2009 and 2014 assessments confirmed a statistically significant increase in performance across the achievement distribution (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles) at both second and sixth class. 

PIRLS

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assesses the reading achievement ‎of fourth class pupils.  First conducted in 2001, PIRLS takes place every five years.  Ireland participated for the first time in PIRLS in 2011 and also took part in 2016.  The next cycle of PIRLS takes place in 2021.

PIRLS is a project of the International Association for the ‎Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and is managed at an international level by the ‎International Study Center in Boston College.  Within each participating country, a National ‎Research Centre (NRC) manages the study.  In Ireland, this role is filled by the Educational ‎Research Centre (ERC).  The ERC is supported in this work by a National Advisory Committee, ‎chaired by the Department of Education and Skills and with representatives from the main ‎education stakeholders.

Ireland’s PIRLS 2016 mean achievement score was 567.  The gender difference in favour of females was 12 points on overall PIRLS scores.  Ireland participated in PIRLS for the first time in 2011.  Table 1.3 shows mean reading scores in PIRLS 2011 and 2016.  A significant improvement in achievement was noted in Ireland (15 points) between 2011 and 2016.  The mean score obtained by Irish girls increased by 13 points since 2011, while the score for boys increased by 17 points.  See Table 1.3.

Table 1.4 compares the cumulative percentages of pupils in Ireland reaching each of the PIRLS International Benchmarks in 2011 and 2016.  The percentage of pupils reaching the intermediate, high and advanced benchmarks in 2016 are all significantly higher than the corresponding percentages in 2011.  There was also an increase in the percentage of pupils reaching the low international benchmark, but the increase was not statistically significant.  See also Figure 1.1.

The percentage of girls achieving the lowest benchmark is 98%, and 23.8% achieved the highest benchmark (above 625 points) in PIRLS 2016.  The proportions for boys was 97.4%, and 19.1%, respectively.  See Table 1.5.

In schools where over 90% of students in the school spoke the language of the test, 23.8% of students achieved the highest benchmark (625 points or above) in PIRLS 2016.  This compares with only 14.9% of students reaching the highest benchmark in reading, in schools where 25% or less of students in the school speak the language of the test.

In schools where one tenth or fewer of students were from a disadvantaged background 98.8% of students achieved the minimum benchmark of 400 points in PIRLS 2016.  Schools where more than half the students were from a disadvantaged background showed 95.2% of students achieved the lowest benchmark of 400 points.  Schools in Urban densely populated areas showed 96.8% of students achieved the lowest benchmark of 400 points, compared with 98.6% of students in schools located in remote rural areas.  See Table 1.5.

PISA

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an assessment of the skills and knowledge of 15 year olds in reading literacy, science and mathematics.  It is a study of the Paris based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). PISA has taken place every three years since 2000, with PISA 2018 the seventh cycle.  In each cycle, one domain is the major domain of assessment, and the remaining two areas are assessed as minor domains.  Reading literacy was the major assessment domain in 2018, with science and mathematics assessed as minor domains.

A sample of information from the PISA National Report (See ERC 2019) is given here.  Refer to the full report for more detail as the text here contains small re-phrasing from the report.  Ireland’s mean score of 518.1 on the reading scale is significantly higher than the OECD average of 487.1, for fifteen year old students.  Ireland ranked 4th out of 36 OECD countries with valid data (or between 1st and 5th if a 95% confidence interval is applied) and 8th out of all 77 participating countries/economies (between 5th and 9th if a 95% confidence interval is applied), and 3rd out of 27 EU countries.  Ireland’s standard deviation for reading is 90.7.  This is smaller than the OECD average of 99.4, indicating a narrower spread of reading achievement in Ireland than on average across OECD countries.  Female students in Ireland significantly outperform male students on PISA 2018 overall reading.  The difference, 23.2 score points, is lower than on average across OECD countries (29.7 points).  See Table 1.6.

Student performance on PISA reading literacy in Ireland is characterised by an above-average percentage (12.1%) of high performers (Level 5 and 6), and a small below-average percentage (11.8%) of low performers (below Level 2); there are significantly fewer low performers (Level 1 and below) and more high performers (Levels 5 and 6) in Ireland than on average across OECD countries.  See Table 1.7 and Figure 1.2.

Table 1.8 presents the performance of student in Ireland below Level 2 and at or above Level 5, between 2009 and 2018.  In Ireland, fewer male students performed below proficiency Level 2 in 2018 (15.1%) compared with 2009 (23.1%).  The difference (-8.0 percentage points) is statistically significant.  Fewer females in Ireland also performed below Level 2 in 2018 (8.5%) compared with 2009 (11.2%).  The difference, -2.7 percentage points, is statistically significant.

In 2018, twice as many male students in Ireland (10.3%) performed at or above Level 5, compared with 2009 (4.5%).  The difference, 5.8 percentage points, is statistically significant.  There was also a statistically significant increase in the proportion of female students who performed at or above Level 5 in 2018 when compared to both 2009 and 2015 (increases of 4.3% and 3.1% respectively).

PISA 2018 results showed that 91.5% of 15-year-old girls achieved the minimum proficiency level in reading, compared with 84.9% of boys.  Among students in the highest Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS) grouping, 94.7% achieved the minimum proficiency level in reading, compared with 78.7% of students in the lowest ESCS grouping.  See Table 1.9.

MATHEMATICS

NAERM

In NAERM 2014, at second class, around one quarter of boys performed at or below Level 1 on the overall mathematics scale (a decrease of 11 percentage points from NAERM 2009), compared to around 26% of girls (a decrease of 8 percentage points from NAERM 2009).  There was little change from NAERM 2009 in the proportions of boys and girls performing at Level 2 (a 3-point decrease for boys and for girls).  In NAERM 2014, almost half of second class boys (49%) performed at or above Level 3 (an increase of 13 percentage points from NAERM 2009), compared to 45% of girls (a 12-point increase from NAERM 2009).  See Table 1.10.

In NAERM 2014, in sixth class similar proportions of boys (26%) and girls (27%) performed at or below Level 1 on the overall mathematics scale (a 7-point and an 8-point decrease from NAERM 2009, respectively).  There was little change in the proportion of boys and girls performing at Level 2 (a 1-point and a 2-point increase, respectively).  At sixth class, 44% of boys performed at or above Level 3 (a 6 percentage point increase from NAERM 2009), while 41% of girls performed at or above Level 3 (also a 6-point increase from NAERM 2009).  See Table 1.11.

Comparisons of scores in the NAERM 2009 and 2014 assessments confirmed a statistically significant increase in performance across the achievement distribution (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles) at both second and sixth class.

PISA

Mathematics in PISA 2018 (skills and knowledge of 15-year-olds) was assessed as a minor domain alongside science.  Subscales are not reported on for minor domains and therefore only overall performance is reported in PISA 2018.

Ireland’s mean score on the overall mathematics scale is 499.6 and this is significantly higher than the OECD average of 489.3.  Ireland is ranked 16th out of 37 OECD countries and 21st out of all 78 participating countries/economies for which valid data were available.  Applying a 95% confidence interval, which takes account of measurement and sampling error, Ireland’s true rank in mathematics among the OECD countries is between 12th and 21st and between 17th and 26th among all participating countries/economies.

In Ireland, males achieved a mean score of 502.6 on PISA 2018 mathematics, while females achieved a mean score of 496.7.  The gender difference (5.9 score points), which amounts to less than one-tenth of a standard deviation, is not significantly different and is only slightly larger than the OECD average difference (5.2) in favour of males, though the latter is statistically significant.  See Table 1.12.

In Ireland, 15.7% of students performed below Level 2 on PISA mathematics, compared with around 24% on average across OECD countries.  Examining the top-performing students in mathematics, 8.2% of students in Ireland perform at or above Level 5.  This is significantly lower than the OECD average of 10.9%.  See Table 1.13 and Figure 1.3.

In 2012 15.2% of male students in Ireland performed below Level 2, and this increased marginally in 2018 to 15.7%.  The percentage of female students in Ireland performing below Level 2 decreased steadily from 18.7% in 2012 to 15.7% in 2018.  However, neither difference between 2012 and 2018 is statistically significant.  The proportion of male students performing at or above Level 5 decreased across cycles, with 12.7% performing at this Level in 2012, and 9.9% in 2018.  The performance of female students at these Levels also changed, with 8.5% of females achieving them in 2012, and 6.6% doing so in 2018.  See Table 1.14.

According to previous research (See GUI Report pg. 42; Geist et al., 2003; Northam, 1997) between 10% and 20% of children will be affected by a long-term health condition, which can have implications for a child’s overall development.  The mother of the study child was asked whether her child had been diagnosed with any longstanding illness, condition or disability.  Just under 16% of three year old children were reported as having at least one longstanding illness, condition or disability.  The major illness types are shown in Table 1.15.  Note that some children had more than one condition.

Asthma was the most commonly reported illness type, with 6% of three year olds having received a doctor diagnosis.  The next most common illness types were eczema/skin allergies (4%) and food/digestive allergies (1.3%).  Taken together, these three conditions accounted for more than half of all chronic illness among three year olds. 

Boys were more likely than girls to have a longstanding illness, condition or disability.  Boys also had higher rates of asthma, eczema/skin allergies, respiratory allergies and food/digestive allergies compared to girls.  In addition, boys also had higher rates of problems using arms/legs/hands/fingers, hyperactivity/attentional problems, severe behavioural problems, autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy and other forms of longstanding conditions.  See Table 1.15.

Key findings from the Growing Up in Ireland Survey showed that one in four three year old children were overweight or obese.  The child’s height and weight measurements were recorded to calculate their Body Mass Index (BMI), which is a widely used way to determine if children have a healthy body weight.  In total, 76% of three year olds were classified as non-overweight, 19% as overweight and 6% as obese.  In other words, almost a quarter of all three year olds had a BMI beyond the range that is considered healthy for this age group, according to the International Obesity Task Force thresholds.

Children’s weight was related to household social class.  Figure 1.5 shows that 5% of children in families in the professional/managerial group were classified as obese at three years of age, compared with 9% of those in the most disadvantaged social class group.  One fifth (20%) of children in every social class were overweight, except the ‘professional/managerial' class where 18% of children were overweight.

Additional information on the life of children is available from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs publication 'State of the Nation's Children Ireland 2016'.  This publication provides a comprehensive picture of children’s lives by presenting key information in areas such as health and education as well as social, emotional, behavioural and self-reported happiness outcomes.  It also presents data on supports and services available to children and their families, along with children’s relationships with their parents and peers.

Table 1.16 shows children aged 0 to 4 years old with intellectual and physical disabilities.  In 2015, a rate of 11.9 (11.9 per thousand) of 0 to 4 year olds were registered as having an intellectual disability.  In this age group a rate of 6.5 (per thousand) children were registered as having a physical and/or sensory disability in 2015.

LEARNING

The Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Scheme, known as the ‘Free Preschool Year’, started in 2010.  All children aged between 3 years 3 months and 4 years 6 months on 1st September are entitled to free preschool care for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, over 38 weeks.  This is a free benefit available to all children.

Results from the Growing Up in Ireland - Non-Parental and Child Cognitive Outcomes at Age 5 Report found that 96% of the children had attended care centres under the Free Preschool Year (FPSY).  Parents who availed of the Free Preschool Scheme (96%) were asked whether they would have been able to send their child to preschool had this policy not been in place. Just over one in five (22%) parents reported that they would not have been in a position to send their child to preschool without the FPSY.

The main reasons reported for not availing of the scheme related to the child already attending a different childcare setting, and unavailability of suitable (perhaps due to parental preferences) free preschool places.  The next main reason reported was that the child had additional special educational needs. 

Less advantaged parents were more likely to report that they would not have been able to send their child to preschool without the scheme.  For example, 36% of families in the lowest income quintile said they would not have been able to send their child to preschool had it not been for the Free Preschool Year compared to 6% of those in the highest income group.

The percentage of parents who said they would not have been able to send their child to preschool without the Free Preschool Year, by family income is shown in Figure 1.6.   Participation rates in organized learning before the official primary entry age is shown in SDG 4.2.2.

PSYCHOSOCIAL WELL-BEING

According to the Growing Up in Ireland Survey (GUI) the majority of children did not have potentially problematic scores in terms of socio-emotional problems, even those living in challenging circumstances.  In relation to three year olds, over eight out of 10 children from economically vulnerable households, families where the parental relationship broke down, one-parent households and families where the primary caregiver had lower second-level education or less, did not experience socio-emotional problems.  The risk factors and protective factors operate in a probabilistic rather than a deterministic fashion.

Socio-Emotional Development

The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was used to assess children’s socio-emotional development.  This was based on responses from the primary caregiver and was measured at the second wave. The SDQ scale measures the level of difficulty children experience in the areas of emotions, conduct, hyperactivity, inattention and peer relationships.

In Wave 2, the children in the 2008 Cohort were three years old.  The proportion of children with potentially problematic scores was 4.8% for the three year olds.  The proportion of boys with potentially problematic scores was higher than the proportion of girls with such scores, in the 2008 Cohort: 5.9% for boys and 3.6% for girls.  The gender difference was statistically significant.

The ESRI GUI Report 1 (2014) emphasise that the SDQ is used to indicate variation in the level of risk of socio-emotional and behavioural problems.  Typically, those in the top 10% of the ‘total difficulties’ scale are seen as being most at risk of socio-emotional and behavioural problems (the ‘potentially problematic’ group).  The scale author (Goodman, 1997) found that a score of 17 or higher distinguished the top 10% in the original study (based on London children aged 4-16 years).  In some early GUI work this threshold score of 17 was used.  In other GUI studies, the top 10% was used as the threshold. 

The ESRI have emphasised that the percentage above a threshold (whether it is the score of 17 or top 10%) cannot be interpreted in an absolute way, as indicating that children above the threshold all have socio-emotional problems and those below it do not.  It is not an absolute measure or a diagnosis.  Using a threshold on the SDQ is very useful in comparing groups to identify who is most likely to have problems (e.g. boys and girls, social classes, economically vulnerable or not).  It is also useful in looking at the association between socio-emotional/behavioural problems and adverse childhood experiences.

Another caution is that the SDQ does not lend itself to being used to set targets.  If the top 10% is identified as the ‘potentially problematic’ group, the percentage in this group will always be 10% (using the score at the 90^th percentile).

The biggest risk factor for a high SDQ score was economic vulnerability.  Children who did not live in economically vulnerable families had only a 3.5 per cent risk of having a high SDQ score.  This rose to about 8 per cent if the child was economically vulnerable.  The high risk associated with economic vulnerability remains statistically significant with other characteristics controlled.  This means that it was not due to differences in family type, level of education of the primary caregiver or relationship breakdown.

The 'Formal and Informal Supports' chapter of the 'State of the Nation's Children Ireland 2016', published by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, states that 11.2% of children experienced consistent poverty in 2014.  Consistent poverty is living in households with equivalised disposable income below the 60% median who experienced at least two forms of enforced deprivation.  In 2018, 4.8% of children aged 0-5 years experienced consistent poverty.  See Table 1.17.

The Department of Education and Skills data shows that the proportion of 4 year olds enrolled in full-time education dropped from 45.5% in 2005 to 33.8% in 2015.  For 5 years olds the proportion enrolled in full-time education also fell from 99.0% to 96.7% over the same time period.  Girls aged 4 years were slightly more likely than boys to be in full-time education but there were very little difference at age 5 years.  See Table 1.19.