Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

Strategic Review of the EDUCO ProgramJuly 2010ACE schools are smaller than CDE schools and this could hamper efficient provision of certain inputs.Research using the MINED database shows that ACE schools average approximately 150 students, andCDE schools average 280 students (based on the subset with complete data; it is possible that an examinationof the entire database for this factor alone would produce slightly different numbers). This is asignificant difference and hampers (or increases the cost) of the efficient provision of fixed-cost resources,including the human resource of a principal who can work full time. This is precisely one of thereasons why, as can be seen in the table, that ACE schools have more resources per student: with fewerstudents per school, the provision of resources per student increases, especially for “fixed” resources.However, it is vitally important that, in terms of the input that represents the vast bulk of the system’scost, the teachers, ACE schools are not less efficient. In contrast to what seems to be a common opinion,ACE schools do not have a lower student-teacher ratio than CDE schools, as Table 3 illustrates.Third and sixth grade scores are comparable with those in CDE schools, although CDE-school scoresare higher in ninth grade. The research team used the results of standardized tests in the National LearningAssessment System (SINEA), which test language and math in 3rd, 6th, and 9th grade (every threeyears), to compare achievement in ACE and CDE schools (Figure 2). Beyond the comparison betweenACE and CDE schools, the data show that average scores are low and that that student scores at the upperlevel are very low, a situation common among all schools. What is certain is that teaching qualityshould improve in all schools.Figure 2. Test Scores for 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders in 200820Source: SINEA, MINED 20084 The most complete downloadable source for poverty data was found by the authors at http://www.care.org.sv/pages.php?Id=47, on May 2, 2010. Othersources tend to have more partial data. Coverage: the entire analysis refers exclusively to rural areas. Only the ACE-CDE comparison was analyzed; privateschools were not included. Time: all data are the most recent available, and therefore are not all from the same year. Poverty data, for example, are notbeing constantly updated, and there was a slight discrepancy of one year among some of the data provided to the authors. This does not materially affectthe conclusions of the analysis. See the annex on the results of the indicators for provision of equipment and infrastructure. In all cases, the data refer tothe central tendency of the row; that is, the central tendency of ACE or CDE schools, in each row (the top 20, the best 5%, etc.). The only exception is thefirst column, which only shows the breakdown of the group in each row by ACEs and CDEs. Thus, looking at the first row, the average PAESITA test gradein CDE schools in the entire rural area is 5.7, and CDE schools make up 45% of the row for “all rural schools.” Measures used: in all cases, the median isused, not the mean, unless specified. This is done to avoid bias from outliers.