Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strategic Review of the EDUCO ProgramJuly 2010ACE and CDE schools achieve almost exactly the same average level of performance on the thirdgrade “PAESITA” standardized achievement test: 5.7. Likewise, the variability among ACE schoolsis similar to the variability among CDE schools. It is important to point out that, since ACE and CDEschools achieve exactly the same grade (emphasizing, however, that ACE schools achieve this despitebeing located in much poorer communities), and since the variability among ACE schools ranges from4.7 to 6.9 points (this refers to the range among the schools in the 5th to 95th percentiles) and amongCDE schools it ranges from 4.8 to 6.8 points, it is evident that the important variability in El Salvadoris “within” each type of school rather than between them. This suggests, as will be repeatedly stressedin this report, that there are considerable problems with quality control, standards, and accountabilitythroughout the system.However, ACE schools achieve the same average as CDE schools despite having significant socialdisadvantages. The proportion of ACE schools that are in municipalities with high, severe extremepoverty is almost double the proportion of CDE schools in municipalities with this poverty level (37%vs. 21%). The average poverty level in those municipalities is, also, slightly higher: 24.8% vs. 19.8%.Then, ACE schools operate at a disadvantage due to poverty. However, as they have the same outcomesas CDE schools, they appear to be more efficient; they offer, along these lines, greater value added.ACE schools seem to have more resources and supplies per student than CDE schools, althoughthey lack equal physical infrastructure compared to CDE schools. They are quite similar to CDEschools with regard to the nominal quantity and quality of teachers. ACE schools have a nominal disadvantage,naturally, because they do not have professional management with authority (the principals arenot responsible for the school). Then, with regard to advantages in resources, ACE and CDE schoolsare similar, in a net sense (better equipped, but worse infrastructure for ACE schools). Annex 2 explainshow the index for resources per student and for infrastructure was calculated.Being an ACE school means reducing the student-teacher ratio by 10 (or from 7 to 10, dependingon the model). 2 This implies, or reinforces, the idea that being an ACE school confers on the schoola degree of cost-effectiveness, or value-added, that is comparatively advantageous. It must be admitted,however, that the impact of both these variables is quite low in absolute terms: we are talking abouta matter of 1% in points on the PAESITA test. Then, to a certain extent, if this type of data is credible(and it does appear to be so), it is important to stress that the “secret” to educational improvement is notachieved by a “magic bullet” in the form of structural change, nor with the “magic bullet” of reducingthe teacher-student ratio. The only thing we wish to stress here is that when comparing two factors oropinions, neither of which is “magic” on its own, it is interesting to see that being a CDE school createsa decrease in cost-effectiveness equivalent to increasing the student-teacher ratio by 10.On this last point, there is a lot of literature on how to try to improve the academic performance ofschools by trying to lower the student-teacher ratio. In general, the best schools tend to have a lowerstudent-teacher ratio, but it is difficult to know if this is a correlation or a cause. Furthermore, it is182 A very simple regression analysis was done to inquire into this point. This analysis takes as the dependent variable third-grade academic achievement,and as “associated factors” or “controls” being or not being an ACE school (as a binomial or dummy variable), student-teacher ratio, teacher qualification,resources/student, poverty level of the communities, and school infrastructure. The coefficient of being or not being an ACE school shows that being or notbeing an ACE school means, with regard to its impact on student achievement, reducing the student-teacher ratio by 10.
Strategic Review of the EDUCO ProgramJuly 2010known that many of the best education systems have had, especially in their development phases, higherstudent-teacher ratios than those that El Salvador has at present. The worldwide debate on this issuecontinues. Nevertheless, be that as it may, the fact is that the worst schools in El Salvador stand out forhaving a higher student-teacher ratio than the best ones. All of this is important because the intentionof this analysis is to compare the “effect” of, or, rather, the correlation of the student-teacher ratio withachievement, in comparison with the factor of “being an ACE school,” to try to obtain a comparativeidea of what it could mean to “be or not to be an ACE school.” It is worth noting that on this point, weare not recommending lowering the student-teacher ratio as education policy.In balance, it can be argued that ACE schools are at a disadvantage (poverty and resources) in relationto CDE schools, but that they nevertheless achieve more or less the same outcomes, at least in the lowergrades. This implies that ACE schools achieve a little better “value added,” which should be of interestto the government.Table 3. Statistical Summary of the Relative Effectiveness of ACE Schools 3Proportionof total(%)3rdGradePAESITA Test25-75Range5-95RangeExtreme Poverty(Average)% of schoolsin municipalitywith high severeextreme povertyResources/StudentStudents/TeacherTeachers withdegree, medianper school (nottotal percentage)Index ofinfrastructuresupply (mean, notmedian)All rural schoolsACE 55% 5.7 5.32, 6.24 4.74, 6.89 24.8 37% 8 33.2 100% 3.3CDE 45% 5.7 5.31, 6.09 4.79, 6.76 19.8 21% 5.3 32 100% 4.4Top 20ACE 65% 7.7 7.63, 8.75 7.55, 9.03 28.2 38% 7.8 28 100% 2.2CDE 35% 8.8 7.71, 9.42 7.65, 9.62 16.4 14% 12.5 20 100% 2.6Top 3% (114)ACE 69% 7.2 7.08, 7.5 7.0, 8.75 28.2 44% 8.3 25.5 100% 2.8CDE 31% 7.1 7.07, 7.52 6.99, 9.42 23.2 29% 6.9 22.3 100% 2.7Top 5% (188)ACE 68% 7.1 6.92, 7.35 6.85, 7.69 27.7 43% 8.3 26 100% 2.9CDE 32% 7 6.93, 7.18 6.84, 8.98 22.7 27% 6.3 24.9 100% 3.2Bottom 5% (190)ACE 60% 4.6 4.42, 4.69 4.18, 4.75 29 49% 8.1 34.3 100% 3.2CDE 40% 4.6 4.47, 4.7 4.12, 4.75 24.3 26% 5.1 36.7 100% 4.1Bottom 20ACE 40% 4.1 3.83, 4.18 3.69, 4.18 37.5 75% 8.1 25.3 100% 2.8CDE 60% 4.2 4.06, 4.18 3.52, 4.25 29.3 50% 5.4 37.3 100% 2.8Source of data: Analysis by authors, based on primary data provided electronically by MINED, with the exception of data onpoverty, which come from FISDL-DIGESTYC-FLACSO-Technical Secretariat of the Presidency-Inter-American DevelopmentBank-World Bank on poverty mapping. 4 Note that the database that was used for this analysis is a subset that onlyincludes the schools for which poverty data could also be found, which was over 95% of them. This is a data set with “complete”variables, but with a slightly lower number of cases than it would have been possible to achieve if the poverty factorhad not been taken into account—but that factor is, of course, important. We point this out to explain why a simple analysiswith the complete data set would possibly give slightly different results.3 It is important to note that this table only compares ACE and CDE schools. There are also CECE, private, and other undefined rural schools, but they arevery few (approximately 3%--among CECE and private, CECE are less than 1%-- and it is not possible to use them to generalize statistically. Therefore,a subset of data was created that included only ACE and CDE schools—some 3,700 schools).19
Page 1 and 2: Strategic Review of the EDUCOProgra
Page 3 and 4: Strategic Review of the EDUCO Progr
Page 17: Strategic Review of the EDUCO Progr
Page 69 and 70:
Strategic Review of the EDUCO Progr
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
show all

Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?