Desktop version

Home arrow Management arrow Improving Access and Quality of Public Services in Latin America: To Govern and To Serve

Results

This first section describes the differences between Chile and Uruguay with respect to quality and equity of basic education (our dependent variable).

Table 5.4 Variables from PISA used in relation to governance factors

Governance factors

Our variables

Description/variable values

Financing

Public and private

stakeholders

School funding sources

Public/Private

Government; Fees; Donors; Other sources

Incentives: Teacher Accountability

Teaching staff

Use of achievement data

for information and

benchmarking

Full-part time

Schools use achievement data to compare themselves with respect to a national or regional population Schools that use achievement data to compare themselves to other schools Schools that use achievement data to monitor their progress

Use of achievement data for decision-making

Schools that use achievement data to make changes in curriculum and instruction

Schools that use achievement data to allocate resources

Parental achievement pressure

Parents expectations toward institution for high achievement of students

Information to parents about achievement in comparison with other schools Head review

Inspectors or other external review

Use of achievement data for assessing Teacher or head achievement

Information of student achievement is used to assess head’s achievement Information of student achievement is used to assess teachers’ achievement

Table 5.4 (continued)

Governance factors

Our variables

Description/variable values

Decentralization

School autonomy: responsibility for staffing and budgeting

Responsible for teacher selection (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Responsible for teacher firing (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Responsible for fixing initial salaries (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Responsible for salaries increase (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Responsible for elaborating institution budget (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities) Responsible for allocating institution budget (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities) Responsible for establishing student discipline practices (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Responsible for student admission (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

School autonomy: responsibility for curriculum and assessment

Responsible for choosing text books (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Responsible for establishing contents of courses (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities) Responsible for establishing courses to be dictated (head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Responsible for establishing student evaluation practices(head, teachers, regional inspectors, national authorities)

Table 5.4 (continued)

Governance factors

Our variables

Description/variable values

Political and special interests

External influences on staffing

Influence of education authorities (in teacher assignment, budgeting, contents, evaluation practices)

Budgeting, curriculum, and assessment

Influence of directive council (in teacher assignment, budgeting, contents, evaluation practices) Influence of parents (in teacher assignment, budgeting, contents, evaluation practices)

Influence of teachers (in teacher assignment, budgeting, contents, evaluation practices)

Influence of students (in teacher assignment, budgeting, contents, evaluation practices)

Influence of external evaluation units (in teacher assignment, budgeting, contents, evaluation practices)

Regarding the four institutional factors considered in this study, their effects on education quality and equity are presented in the section that follows. The analysis goes from the most robust findings of the regressions to the qualitative evidence that can help explain some of the mechanisms at play in the governance of these two educational systems.

The variable of provision and financing is integrated into the analysis of each of the institutional governance factors in question as it intervenes in the relationship between each of the factors and the educational outcomes. The private school/public school distinction for the case of Uruguay, and the distinction between public (municipal) schools, private subsidized and private non-subsidized schools for the case of Chile are paramount for understanding how internal country variation takes place. The type of school provision was first used as a control variable for the full sample regression and then used to estimate separate regressions.

In the analysis of the effect of private-public provision on educational outcomes we have to take into account that omitted variables are a problem if there are features that are consistently related both to public/private choice and performance. Even if controlling for individual and school observable variables, there will probably be some unobservable character?istics of parents (or students) that are correlated both with private choice and outcome; or unobservable school characteristics (e.g., resources, not well covered by PISA data) that are also correlated with private provision and outcome. Therefore, estimated coefficients for private or public provision are not good measures of causal effects on educational performance. We estimate associations, after controlling for observable key individual characteristics, school inputs, and governance factors. In general, we do not find a repeated association of provision and performance in all evaluated areas after the usual controls. We do find a positive association between private provision-financing and results in science, and a negative association between private provision-public financing and results in mathematics. No significant association is found when assessing reading scores.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >

Related topics