Upload
emma-washington
View
220
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ludger Wößmann
Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:
Lessons from International Analysis
International Seminar
“Demand, Autonomy and Accountability in Schooling”
OECD and Department of Education and Training,
Flemish Community of Belgium
15-16 May, 2006
“Empowering” the Demand Side
• Basically all countries: – Ultimate responsibility and supervision by the state
• But: public vs. private involvement in 2 broad tasks: – Operation of schools– Funding of schools
• Public-private partnership (PPP) = any collaboration between public and private entities
Two forms of PPP: 1.Public operation + private funding
•E.g., parents have to pay tuition fees for public schools
2.Private operation + public funding•Private operation by business, church, …•Public funding through base funding or vouchers
Public Funding and Public Operation of Schools
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Public funding
Public operation
BEL
NORISLSWE
FIN
DEURUSLVA
POLUSACZECHE
GBRAUTPRT
HUNGRC
NZL
ITA
LUX
BRA
DNK
ESP
FRAJPN
MEX
KOR
IRL
NLD
Average share of
public funding
Share of publicly operated
schools Difference
Average share of public funding in publicly operated schools
Average share of public funding in privately operated schools
Difference
(K) (L) (M) (N) (O) (P)
BEL 87.5 24.6 63.0 95.1 85.0 10.1 CHE 93.8 93.5 0.3 98.5 25.5 73.0 DEU 97.3 95.9 1.4 98.2 77.1 21.1 FIN 99.8 97.2 2.6 99.9 98.3 1.5 FRA 75.5 77.8 -2.4 77.3 69.1 8.2 GBR 89.8 90.8 -1.0 98.7 2.2 96.4 GRC 83.7 95.8 -12.0 87.4 0.0 87.4 IRL 91.1 39.5 51.6 98.0 86.6 11.4 ISL 99.4 99.2 0.2 99.9 40.4 59.5 ITA 75.2 94.2 -19.0 79.2 10.1 69.1 JPN 72.5 69.6 2.9 88.4 36.0 52.4 KOR 49.1 50.6 -1.5 54.9 43.3 11.6 MEX 36.8 84.5 -47.6 43.6 0.0 43.6 NLD 94.7 26.0 68.7 94.7 94.7 0.0 NOR 99.5 98.5 1.0 99.8 82.3 17.5 RUS 93.5 100.0 -6.5 93.5 SWE 99.9 96.6 3.3 99.9 99.3 0.6 USA 91.6 94.6 -2.9 95.6 22.1 73.6 Mean 86.9 83.0 3.9 91.2 65.9 25.4
International Differences in Public Funding and Public Operation of
Schools
Why Should It Matter?
Positive aspects of involvement of:
Public sector Private sector
Provision Inculcation of
beliefs and cultural values
Incentives for cost containment and
qualitative innovation
Funding Enabling choice
for credit-constrained families
Increased accountability
Student Achievement in the Two Forms of PPPs
lowhigh
low
high
74.6
36.636.7
0.00
20
40
60
80
Public funding
Public operation
Math score (relative to lowest category)
Public Operation/Funding and Math Performance across Countries
Country-level public-private measures School-level public-private measures (Q) (R) (S) (T) (U) (V) (W) (X) (Y)
Top left quadrant 37.93 *** (12.52) Bottom left quad. 0.02 (7.73) Bottom right quad. -36.64 ***
(8.17)
Public operation -74.55 *** -93.80 *** -193.15 ** -19.68 *** -24.69 *** -9.05
(14.78) (13.81) (94.26) (2.40) (2.69) (5.98) Public funding 24.51 91.05 *** 3.73 1.64 18.56 *** 30.18 *** (26.69) (27.03) (77.00) (3.53) (3.96) (6.40) Interaction 113.45 -20.37 *** (109.86) (7.63)
Observations 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 Strata 29 29 29 29 PSUs 29 29 29 29 29 4,870 4,870 4,870 4,870 R2 0.314 0.309 0.293 0.315 0.316 0.297 0.293 0.298 0.298
Public Operation/Funding and Reading/Science Performance across
Countries
Reading Science
Country-level public-
private measures School-level public-private measures
Country-level public- private measures
School-level public-private measures
(Z) (AA) (AB) (AC) (AD) (AE) (AF) (AG) (AH) (AI)
Top left quadrant 28.28 ** 17.00 (10.45) (12.45) Bottom left quad. -9.56 5.86 (6.39) (6.61) Bottom right quad. -13.06 ** -18.36 ***
(5.76) (6.53)
Public operation -56.95 *** -35.15 -19.27 *** -7.04 -55.61 *** -183.89 ** -17.94 *** -6.31
(10.71) (70.13) (2.30) (4.88) (11.86) (80.54) (2.42) (5.01) Public funding 59.06 ** 78.07 8.35 ** 17.42 *** 22.07 -90.88 0.79 9.39 * (23.62) (59.05) (3.29) (5.37) (20.49) (66.11) (3.36) (5.24) Interaction -24.80 -15.91 ** 146.01 -15.11 ** (84.64) (6.30) (94.11) (6.41)
Observations 130,242 130,242 130,242 130,242 130,242 72,388 72,388 72,388 72,388 72,388 Strata 29 29 29 29 PSUs 29 29 29 4,882 4,882 29 29 29 4,870 4,870 R2 0.310 0.311 0.311 0.306 0.306 0.254 0.256 0.257 0.252 0.252
Interactions of Operation and Funding
Effect of public funding depending on type of operation:
17.4
1.50
5
10
15
20
Private operation Public operation
Effect of public funding on reading score
Autonomy and Accountability
Complementarity: school autonomy + external exams
• School autonomy allows: – Use of superior local knowledge (good for learning)– Opportunistic behaviour (bad for learning)
•= Decentralised decision-makers get away with behaving in ways that advance their own interest rather than the system’s interest
• If there is (a) asymmetric (decentralised) information = imperfect monitoring = limited accountability
•And (b) opposing interests
Autonomy may be good or bad for student performance– Depending on whether in a given decision-making area,
•there are local knowledge leads and/or incentives for opportunistic behaviour
•External exams can ease asymmetric information– Provide information on how individual students
perform relative to national (or regional) student population
Ease the monitoring problems inherent in educationAlign incentives of local decision-makers with
system goalsMake it more likely that schools act according to the
goals of the system if they are given autonomy
By introducing accountability, external exams ease the “bad” effects of autonomy, ensuring a “good” net effect
Autonomy and Accountability
Effects of Autonomy on Student Performance
— With and Without External Exams —
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
NoYes
No
Yes
55.5
76.2
23.7
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Central exams
School autonomy over teacher salaries
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Math test
score
NoYes
No
Yes
32.536.4
20.8
0.00
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Central exams
School autonomy over teacher salaries
PISA
Math test
score
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
NoYes
No
Yes
64.1 67.6
22.7
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Central exams
Teacher influence on resource funding
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Math test
score
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
NoYes
No
Yes
4.5
23.6
11.7
0.00
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Central exams
School autonomy in determining course content
PISA
Math test
score
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
Digression on Standardized Testing – With and Without Standards/Goals
–
NoYes
No
Yes
19.1
27.9
10.2
0.00
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Central exams
Standardized tests
PISA
Math test
score
NoYes
No
Yes
43.2 44.3
9.8
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Central exams
School autonomy over school budget
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Math test
score
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance – With Opportunism and Without Local Knowledge
Lead –
NoYes
No
Yes
46.545.1
6.10.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Central exams
Collective teacher influence on curriculum
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Math test
score
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance – With Opportunism and Without Local Knowledge
Lead –
NoYes
No
Yes
43.7
56.2
0.0
16.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Central exams
Individual teacher influence on curriculum
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Math test
score
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance – Without Opportunism and With Local Knowledge
Lead –
Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:
Main Results from International Analyses
•Public-private partnerships: – Public school operation student performance– Public school funding student performance Most effective school systems: PPP where the state
finances the schools and contracts the private sector to run them
•Autonomy and external exams: – External exit exams student performance– School autonomy in systems with external exit
examsComplementarity: Decentralisation works – if
combined with external examination.– Education policy should combine the two:
•Setting and testing standards externally •but leaving it up to schools how to pursue them.
Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:
Some Unresolved Issues
•Equity of student outcomes•Non-cognitive skills as alternative outcome
measures• Interactions between choice, autonomy and
accountability•Additional measures of choice, autonomy and
accountability •PISA 2003 data
The EENEE Website– www.education-economics.org –
•www.education-economics.org as a forum to promote and disseminate research on the Economics of Education in Europe:
www.education-economics.org
Economics of Education
EENEE
Mapping of Researchers
What’s New
Symposia
References