DOCSLIB.ORG

Literacy and Numeracy in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in International Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Literacy and Numeracy in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in International Studies The Irish Journal of Education, 2015, xl, pp. 3-28. LITERACY AND NUMERACY IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Gerry Shiel and Lorraine Gilleece Educational Research Centre St Patrick’s College, Dublin Recent international assessments of educational achievement at primary, post- primary, and adult levels allow for comparisons of performance in reading literacy and numeracy/mathematics between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. While students in grade 4 (Year 6) in Northern Ireland significantly outperformed students in the Republic in reading literacy and mathematics in the PIRLS and TIMSS studies in 2011, 15-year olds in the Republic outperformed students in Northern Ireland on reading and mathematical literacy in PISA 2006 and 2012. Performance on PISA reading literacy and mathematics declined significantly from performance in earlier cycles in Northern Ireland in 2006 and in the Republic of Ireland in 2009. However, while performance in the Republic improved in 2012, it has remained at about the same level since 2006 in Northern Ireland. Adults in both Northern Ireland and the Republic performed significantly below the international averages on literacy and numeracy in the 2012 PIAAC study. Results of the studies are discussed in the context of policy initiatives in 2011 to improve literacy and numeracy in both jurisdictions, including the implementation of literacy and numeracy strategies and the establishment of targets for improved performance at system and school levels. Both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have participated in four major international assessments of scholastic achievement in recent years – the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), both organized by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), organized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These studies allow for a comparison of the performance of students and adults in the two jurisdictions in the years in which they were administered, and, in the case of PISA, for a consideration of trends in performance over time, since both jurisdictions participated in PISA on five occasions since 2000. Some comparisons can also be drawn 4 GERRY SHIEL AND LORRAINE GILLEECE between the performance of adults in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on PIAAC and their performance on an earlier study of adult literacy – the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS). In addition to outcomes on tests of achievement, all four provide contextual information obtained from questionnaires. The questionnaires in the school-based surveys (PIRLS, TIMSS, PISA) provide data at the level of education systems, schools, and classrooms, as well as data on students and their homes, while the PIAAC questionnaire provides information at the level of the participating adult. Despite strong cultural, economic, and geographic links between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, their education systems have developed more or less independently of one another since separation in 1922. In the past, the education system in Northern Ireland was influenced by developments in curriculum and assessment in the United Kingdom, especially in England, but, in 1999, policy and legislative responsibility for education was devolved from the UK government to a local Assembly. The Republic of Ireland has enjoyed relative independence in educational decision making since its establishment in 1922. Since 2000, officials from Northern Ireland and the Republic have worked collaboratively in the context of the North-South Ministerial Council on such issues as education for children with special needs, under-achievement in education, and teacher qualifications (see http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org). THE FOUR STUDIES The data considered in this paper are drawn from PIRLS, TIMSS, PISA, and PIAAC. PIRLS is a study of the reading literacy of students in their fourth year of formal schooling (Year 6 in Northern Ireland; fourth class in the Republic of Ireland). Although PIRLS was administered on two previous occasions (2001, 2006), Northern Ireland and the Republic took part for the first time in Spring 2011. Both met PIRLS 2011 sampling criteria. The exclusion rate (based on school-level and within-school exclusions) was marginally greater in Northern Ireland (3.5%) than in the Republic (2.5%), though both met a 5% criterion level. In all, 3,568 students in 136 schools in Northern Ireland and 4,524 students in 151 schools in the Republic took part. The overall response rate in the Republic (based on numbers of participating students and schools) was 95%, while it was 79% in Northern Ireland, a level that was reached only after replacement schools were added. The average age of students was 10.4 years in Northern Ireland and 10.3 years in the Republic. LITERACY AND NUMERACY IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE REPUBLIC 5 TIMSS is a study of mathematics and science, also of students in their fourth year of formal schooling. It has been administered in fourth grade on four occasions (1995, when it was called the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003, 2007, and 2011). While the Republic of Ireland participated in 1995 and 2011, Northern Ireland participated for the first time in 2011. Participation numbers and rates for TIMSS in both Northern Ireland and the Republic are very similar to those for PIRLS, since the two studies were administered to the same students. Neither Northern Ireland nor the Republic took part in TIMSS in eighth grade in 2011. (The Republic participated in 1995 and 2015.) PISA is a study of the reading literacy, mathematical literacy, and scientific literacy of 15-year olds and has been administered in OECD and partner countries every three years since 2000. In 2012, it was administered in all 34 OECD countries and in an additional 31 ‘partner’ countries. Northern Ireland has participated in all five cycles to date as part of the United Kingdom sample, while the Republic of Ireland has participated as a full OECD member state. Schools and students in Northern Ireland were over-sampled to allow performance to be reported separately from the UK as a whole. Whereas the samples for the Republic of Ireland and the UK as a whole were adjudicated by the OECD to ensure that they were representative, and that response rates were in line with PISA technical standards, the sample for Northern Ireland was not formally adjudicated, though the OECD has produced results for Northern Ireland, in the same way as it has for other recognized jurisdictions such as Flemish Belgium and the Canadian provinces. In 2012, 2,224 students in 90 schools in Northern Ireland and 5,016 students in 183 schools in the Republic of Ireland took part (OECD, 2013b). In 2012, the Republic of Ireland had a weighted response rate of 99% at school level and 84% at student levels (OECD, 2013b, Table A2.3). Response rates for Northern Ireland, separate from those for the UK as a whole, have not been reported. For the first and second cycles of PISA, only paper-based tests were employed. Computer-based tests were administered alongside paper-based texts from 2006 onwards in some countries, including the Republic of Ireland. Since Northern Ireland employed paper-based tests only up to and including 2012, only performance on paper-based tests is considered in this paper. From 2015, PISA will be offered in most countries in computer-based format only. 6 GERRY SHIEL AND LORRAINE GILLEECE PIAAC is a study of adult literacy (reading literacy, numeracy, computer- based problem solving), which was administered to representative samples of adults in 25 countries/jurisdictions for the first time in 2012 (OECD, 2013a, 2013c). PIAAC allowed for comparisons with earlier international studies, including IALS (the International Adult Literacy Study) which was administered in 20 countries, including the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland between 1994 and 1998. In 2012, 3,761 adults (aged 16-64) in Northern Ireland and 5,983 in the Republic participated in PIAAC. Northern Ireland had a response rate of 65%, while in the Republic, the response rate was 72% (the required rate was stated to be 70%, though, like Northern Ireland, most participating countries did not meet it). PIAAC employed a combination of print-based texts (for non-computer users) and electronic or computer-based texts. In Northern Ireland, 10.0% of adults indicated that they had no computer experience, 2.3% said that they were not sufficiently confident to complete the PIAAC tests on computer though they had some skills, and 5.8% ‘failed’ a basic computer skills test. In the Republic, the corresponding figures were 10.1%, 17.4%, and 4.7% (CSO, 2013). These adults completed the PIAAC tasks on paper. It is unclear why a far greater percentage of adults in the Republic than in Northern Ireland decided that their computer skills were insufficient to do PIAAC on computer. Comparisons between PIAAC and the earlier IALS study can be made on the basis of an unspecified set of common items (OECD, 2013c). However, caution is urged due to differences in the construct of literacy assessed in the two studies and the fact that large proportions of participants completed the PIAAC test on computer, whereas none did in IALS. READING LITERACY PIRLS Reading Literacy In PIRLS 2011, students in Northern Ireland achieved a mean score of 558.5 (Figure 1), which ranked fifth of 45 participating countries; only Hong Kong SAR, the Russian Federation, Finland, and Singapore achieved significantly higher mean scores (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012). Students in the Republic of Ireland achieved a mean score of 551.6, which ranked tenth, with five countries (including Northern Ireland) achieving significantly higher mean scores.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Are Geodetic Survey Markers?
    Part I Introduction to Geodetic Survey Markers, and the NGS / USPS Recovery Program Stf/C Greg Shay, JN-ACN United States Power Squadrons / America’s Boating Club Sponsor: USPS Cooperative Charting Committee Revision 5 - 2020 Part I - Topics Outline 1. USPS Geodetic Marker Program 2. What are Geodetic Markers 3. Marker Recovery & Reporting Steps 4. Coast Survey, NGS, and NOAA 5. Geodetic Datums & Control Types 6. How did Markers get Placed 7. Surveying Methods Used 8. The National Spatial Reference System 9. CORS Modernization Program Do you enjoy - Finding lost treasure? - the excitement of the hunt? - performing a valuable public service? - participating in friendly competition? - or just doing a really fun off-water activity? If yes , then participation in the USPS Geodetic Marker Recovery Program may be just the thing for you! The USPS Triangle and Civic Service Activities USPS Cooperative Charting / Geodetic Programs The Cooperative Charting Program (Nautical) and the Geodetic Marker Recovery Program (Land Based) are administered by the USPS Cooperative Charting Committee. USPS Cooperative Charting / Geodetic Program An agreement first executed between USPS and NOAA in 1963 The USPS Geodetic Program is a separate program from Nautical and was/is not part of the former Cooperative Charting agreement with NOAA. What are Geodetic Survey Markers? Geodetic markers are highly accurate surveying reference points established on the surface of the earth by local, state, and national agencies – mainly by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS). NGS maintains a database of all markers meeting certain criteria. Common Synonyms Mark for “Survey Marker” Marker Marker Station Note: the words “Geodetic”, Benchmark* “Survey” or Station “Geodetic Survey” Station Mark may precede each synonym.
    [Show full text]
  • Set Reading Benchmarks in South Africa
    SETTING READING BENCHMARKS IN SOUTH AFRICA October 2020 PHOTO: SCHOOL LIBRARY, CREDIT: PIXABAY Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067419F00007 THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS PREPARED INDEPENDENTLY BY KHULISA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, (PTY) LTD. THE AUTHOR’S VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PUBLICATION DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. ISBN: 978-1-4315-3411-1 All rights reserved. You may copy material from this publication for use in non-profit education programmes if you acknowledge the source. Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067419F00007 SETTING READING BENCHMARKS IN SOUTH AFRICA October 2020 AUTHORS Matthew Jukes (Research Consultant) Elizabeth Pretorius (Reading Consultant) Maxine Schaefer (Reading Consultant) Katharine Tjasink (Project Manager, Senior) Margaret Roper (Deputy Director, Khulisa) Jennifer Bisgard (Director, Khulisa) Nokuthula Mabhena (Data Visualisation, Khulisa) CONTACT DETAILS Margaret Roper 26 7th Avenue Parktown North Johannesburg, 2196 Telephone: 011-447-6464 Email: [email protected] Web Address: www.khulisa.com CONTRACTUAL INFORMATION Khulisa Management Services Pty Ltd, (Khulisa) produced this Report for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under its Practical Education Research for Optimal Reading and Management: Analyze, Collaborate, Evaluate (PERFORMANCE) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards PART 4: Standards for Architecture, Engineering, Construction (A/E/C) and Facility Management
    FGDC-STD-007.4-2002 NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards PART 4: Standards for Architecture, Engineering, Construction (A/E/C) and Facility Management Facilities Working Group Federal Geographic Data Committee Federal Geographic Data Committee Department of Agriculture · Department of Commerce · Department of Defense · Department of Energy Department of Housing and Urban Development · Department of the Interior · Department of State Department of Transportation · Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency · Library of Congress National Aeronautics and Space Administration · National Archives and Records Administration Tennessee Valley Authority Federal Geographic Data Committee Established by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) promotes the coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geographic data. The FGDC is composed of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, State, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Library of Congress; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Archives and Records Administration; and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Additional Federal agencies participate on FGDC subcommittees and working groups. The Department of the Interior chairs the committee. FGDC subcommittees work on issues related to data categories coordinated under the circular. Subcommittees establish and implement standards for data content, quality, and transfer; encourage the exchange of information and the transfer of data; and organize the collection of geographic data to reduce duplication of effort. Working groups are established for issues that transcend data categories. For more information about the committee, or to be added to the committee's newsletter mailing list, please contact: Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat c/o U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • MONETARY and FINANCIAL TRENDS – SEPTEMBER 2020 Stable Financial Markets Support Economy in Recession
    ANALYSIS DANMARKS NATIONALBANK 23 SEPTEMBER 2020 — NO. 17 MONETARY AND FINANCIAL TRENDS – SEPTEMBER 2020 Stable financial markets support economy in recession Calm in financial markets CONTENTS Financial markets have been calm since late March, partly due to central banks’ asset purchase programmes and liquidity measures. Financial 2 KEY TRENDS IN THE FINANCIAL conditions in Denmark are accommodative, which MARKETS helps to boost economic activity in Denmark. 3 THE ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS 6 MONETARY POLICY AND MONEY Moderate strengthening MARKETS of the Danish krone 10 KRONE DEMAND AND FOREIGN Since March, the Danish krone has seen a EXCHANGE MARKETS moderate strengthening. At end-August, Dan- 11 BOND MARKETS marks Nationalbank had not intervened in the foreign exchange market in the previous five 13 EQUITY MARKETS months, and monetary policy interest rates are 16 CREDIT AND MONEY unchanged. Danmarks Nationalbank’s extra- ordinary lending facility is still being used, but to a limited extent. Low credit growth for Danish corporations Credit growth for Danish corporations has fall- en since March, while rising in the euro area. The difference can be attributed, among other factors, to the economic setback in Denmark being less severe, and to Danish corporations having built up liquidity buffers to a higher extent in the run-up to the covid-19 outbreak. ANALYSIS — DANMARKS NATIONALBANK 2 MONETARY AND FINANCIAL TRENDS – SEPTEMBER 2020 Key trends in the financial markets Since June, monetary policy interest rates in both The market development since June implies that the Denmark and the euro area have remained un- financing costs of households and non-financial cor- changed, and the money market spread has re- porations have declined further and are now leveled mained relatively stable.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundational Guide to National Institutional Arrangements Instruments for Geospatial Information Management (Asia-Pacific)
    United Nations committee of experts on global geospatial information management Foundational Guide to national institutional arrangements instruments for geospatial information management (Asia-Pacific) Working Group on National Institutional Arrangements August 2019 Contents UnitedEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nations........ committee................................................................................................................... of experts on global geospatial4 infor- mation1. INTRODUCTION management .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................5 1.2 Principles for effective National Institutional Arrangements ........................................5 1.3 Description of NIA instruments .........................................................................................7 2. SELF-ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ...........................................................................................11 2.1 Proposed roadmap of institutional design for geospatial information management. ......11 Foundational2.2 Self-assessment checklist .................................................................................................... Guide to national12 3. GUIDE TO NIA INSTRUMENTS IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION ......................................................14 institutional 3.1 Establishment of coordinating functions
    [Show full text]
  • Next Generation Height Reference Frame
    NEXT GENERATION HEIGHT REFERENCE FRAME PART 1/3: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nicholas Brown, Geoscience Australia Jack McCubbine, Geoscience Australia Will Featherstone, Curtin University 0 <Insert Report Title> Motivation Within five years everyone in Australia will have the capacity to position themselves at the sub-decimetre level using mobile Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) technology augmented with corrections delivered either over the internet or via satellite. This growth in technology will provide efficient and accurate positioning for industrial, environmental and scientific applications. The Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020 (GDA2020) was introduced in 2017 in recognition of the increasing reliance and accuracy of positioning from GNSS. GDA2020 is free of many of the biases and distortions associated with Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94) and aligns the datum to the global reference frame in which GNSS natively operate. For all the benefits of GDA2020, it only provides accurate heights relative to the ellipsoid. Ellipsoidal heights do not take into account changes in Earth’s gravitational potential and therefore cannot be used to predict the direction of fluid flow. For this reason, Australia has a physical height datum, known as the Australian Height Datum (AHD) coupled with a model known as AUSGeoid to convert ellipsoidal heights from GNSS to AHD heights. The Australian Height Datum (Roelse et al., 1971) is Australia’s first and only national height datum. It was adopted by the National Mapping Council in 1971. Although it is still fit for purpose for many applications, it has a number of biases and distortions which make it unacceptable for some industrial, scientific and environmental activities.
    [Show full text]
  • GEODETIC SURVEY MANUAL State of Vermont Agency of Transportation Table of Contents
    GEODETIC SURVEY MANUAL State of Vermont Agency of Transportation Table of Contents List of Figures 5 Chapter One Operations Geodetic Network ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Geodetic Control Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Framework for Densification ........................................................................................................................ 7 Long-Range Strategy .................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Strategy ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Types of Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 8 GPS Densification ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Level Lines...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Vertical Working Surface (AVWS)
    Australian Vertical Working Surface (AVWS) Technical Implementation Plan Version 1.3 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM) Geodesy Working Group (GWG) 10 December 2020 Document History Version Written by Date Comment Change in zero degree term discussion (see Appendix A). Jack McCubbine and 1.3 10 December 2020 Nicholas Brown Addition of Appendix B to describe bias in AGQG2019 model. Updated links to models in AWS in Jack McCubbine and Section 7. 1.2 26 August 2020 Nicholas Brown Refined description of AVWS and AGQG to describe the differences. Jack McCubbine and 1.1 14 July 2020 Nicholas Brown Jack McCubbine and 1.0 16 December 2019 Nicholas Brown © Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) 2020. With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, this product is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Table of contents 1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 4 2. Motivation for introducing AVWS.................................................................................. 4 3. Height Fundamentals .................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Physical Height Datums ................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Height Systems and Height Datums ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Benchmarking Northern Ireland's Competitiveness Against Small Advanced Economies
    BENCHMARKING NORTHERN IRELAND’S COMPETITIVENESS AGAINST SMALL ADVANCED ECONOMIES Thomas Byrne – Analytical Services, Department for the Economy MAY 2017 Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background and Context ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Research Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Identifying Small Advanced Economies .................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Selection Criteria ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Developing a Shortlist ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.3 Selected
    [Show full text]
  • Benchmark Report on the Performance of the Netherlands in Conducting Clinical Drug Trials
    Benchmark report clinical drug trial performance CWTS BENCHMARK REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NETHERLANDS IN CONDUCTING CLINICAL DRUG TRIALS Authors: Jarno Hoekman School of Innovation Sciences; Eindhoven University of Technology; the Netherlands Hiddo Lambers Heerspink Department of Clinical Pharmacology University Medical Center Groningen Advisory Board: Dr. HJ Lambers Heerspink Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen Ms. T Hoffman Quintiles, Hoofddorp Prof. dr. NS Klazinga Academisch Medisch Centrum Amsterdam, Dutch Clinical Trial Foundation Ms. dr. I Klingmann Project Coordinator ICREL Ms. ir. N Kraaijeveld Nefarma, Den Haag Ms. dr. LE Visser Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam Prof. dr. HGM Leufkens Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy, Utrecht University, Medicine Evaluation Board, The Hague Prof. dr. HJ Out Women's Health Global Clinical Research, MSD, Oss Prof. dr. RJW Tijssen Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden Prof.dr. D de Zeeuw Department of Clinical Pharmacology University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen Benchmark report clinical drug trial performance Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Methods
    [Show full text]
  • Next Generation Height Reference Frame
    NEXT GENERATION HEIGHT REFERENCE FRAME PART 2/3: USER REQUIREMENTS Nicholas Brown, Geoscience Australia Nicholas Bollard, RMIT University Jack McCubbine, Geoscience Australia Will Featherstone, Curtin University 0 <Insert Report Title> Document Control Version Status & revision notes Author Date 0.1 Initial draft Nicholas Brown 31/1/2018 0.2 Update to make it clear that the scope of the project is to Nicholas Brown 16/3/2018 assess user requirements for a height reference frame to be available alongside AHD 1.0 Incorporate feedback from User Requirements study Nicholas Brown 8/11/2018 1.1 Incorporate feedback from Jack McCubbine Nicholas Brown 20/11/2018 2.0 Review and alignment with Technical Options document Nicholas Brown 23/11/2018 and Executive Summary 2.1 Minor adjustments following review by Jack McCubbine Nicholas Brown 3/12/2018 2.2 Minor adjustments following review by Nic Gowans, Mick Nicholas Brown 17/12/2018 Filmer and Jack McCubbine 3.0 Minor corrections following a review by Phil Collier Nicholas Brown 14/2/2019 1 Next Generation Height Reference Frame Contents 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................ 3 2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Changing world of geospatial .......................................................................................... 3 2.2 Introduction to the AHD ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Responsible Investment Benchmark Report 2020 New Zealand
    Responsible Investment Benchmark Report 2020 New Zealand SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS RESEARCH PARTNER Responsible Investment | Benchmark Report 2020 New Zealand Disclaimer Contact us KPMG’s input into this report has been prepared at the request RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT of the Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) in ASSOCIATION AUSTRALASIA accordance with the terms of KPMG’s engagement letter dated Level 3, 478 George Street 04 March 2020. The services provided in connection with KPMG’s Sydney, NSW 2000 engagement comprise an advisory engagement, which is not subject Australia to assurance or other standards issued by The New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and, consequently no opinions or +61 2 8228 8100 conclusions intended to convey assurance have been expressed. [email protected] responsibleinvestment.org The information contained in this report has been prepared based on material gathered through a detailed industry survey and other sources (see methodology). The findings in this report are based on a qualitative study and the reported results reflect a perception of the respondents. No warranty of completeness, accuracy or reliability is given in relation to the statements and representations made by, and the information and documentation provided by, asset managers and owners consulted as part of the process. The sources of the information provided are indicated in this report. KPMG has not sought to independently verify those sources. Neither KPMG nor RIAA are under any obligation in any circumstance to update this report, in either oral or written form, for events occurring after the report has been issued in final form. The report is intended to provide an overview of the current state of the responsible investment industry, as defined by RIAA.
    [Show full text]