8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
1/56
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
2/56
2
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
3/56
Definition of school exclusion A roach Model
Broader implications
3
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
4/56
SCHOOL EXCLUSIONSCHOOL EXCLUSION
4
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
5/56
PreliminaryPreliminary assumptionsassumptions
Education as a fundamentalfundamental humanhuman rightright (DakarFramework for Action, 2000)
This is only fully met if and only if formal schooling
translates into learninglearning. Hence, if a student does not develop basic skills he/shehe/she isis excludedexcluded..
5
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
6/56
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
7/56
exclusionexclusion?? We consider the distribution of learning among students(Soares, 2009).
It is possible to list four levels of learning which reflectpedagogicaland normative meanings:
AdvancedAdvanced levellevel studentsstudents o be ond what would beexpected for his/her school stage.
ProficientProficient studentsstudents demonstrate the content and skills
. BasicBasic levellevel studentsstudents demonstrate only partial abilities.
BelowBelow BasicBasic levellevel studentsstudents demonstrate rudimentarycompetence of the field measured.
7
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
8/56
exclusionexclusion?? We consider the distribution of learning among students(Soares, 2009).
It is possible to list four levels of learning which reflectpedagogicaland normative meanings:
AdvancedAdvanced levellevel studentsstudents o be ond what would beexpected for his/her school stage.
ProficientProficient studentsstudents demonstrate the content and skills
. BasicBasic levellevel studentsstudents demonstrate only partial abilities.
BelowBelow BasicBasic levellevel students demonstrate rudimentaryOur
competence of the field measured.ocus
8
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
9/56
DefinitionDefinition ofof schoolschool exclusionexclusion
stu ent s exc u e e s e as
not performed, according to his/herlevel of schooling, the basic skills in
Readin and Math in the national
evaluation system (Prova Brasil)
9
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
10/56
10
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
11/56
Table 1: Definition of learning levels according to students scores.
LearningLearning LevelLevel4th grade4th grade 8th grade8th grade
ReadingReading MathMath ReadingReading MathMath
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Source: Soares, Jos Francisco. ndice de Desenvolvimento da Educao de So Paulo IDESP:bases metodolgicas. So Paulo Perspec., So Paulo, v. 23, n. 1, p. 29-41, jan./jun. 2009.
11
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
12/56
Table 1: Definition of learning levels according to students scores.
LearningLearning LevelLevel4th grade4th grade 8th grade8th grade
ReadingReading MathMath ReadingReading MathMath
Below Basic < 150 < 175 < 200 < 225
Basic 150.01 to 200 175,01 to 200 200.01 to 275 225.01 to 300
Proficient 200.01 to 250 200.01 to 225 275.01 to 325 300.01 to 350
Advanced > 250.01 > 225.01 > 325.01 > 350.01
Source: Soares, Jos Francisco. ndice de Desenvolvimento da Educao de So Paulo IDESP:bases metodolgicas. So Paulo Perspec., So Paulo, v. 23, n. 1, p. 29-41, jan./jun. 2009.
12
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
13/56
Table 1: Definition of learning levels according to students scores.
LearningLearning LevelLevel4th grade4th grade 8th grade8th grade
ReadingReading MathMath ReadingReading MathMath
Below Basic < 150 < 175 < 200 < 225
Basic 150.01 to 200 175.01 to 200 200.01 to 275 225.01 to 300
Proficient 200.01 to 250 200.01 to 225 275.01 to 325 300.01 to 350
Advanced > 250.01 > 225.01 > 325.01 > 350.01
Source: Soares, Jos Francisco. ndice de Desenvolvimento da Educao de So Paulo IDESP:bases metodolgicas. So Paulo Perspec., So Paulo, v. 23, n. 1, p. 29-41, jan./jun. 2009.
13
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
14/56
Table 1: Definition of learning levels according to students scores.
LearningLearning LevelLevel4th grade4th grade 8th grade8th grade
ReadingReading MathMath ReadingReading MathMath
Below Basic < 150 < 175 < 200 < 225
Basic 150.01 to 200 175.01 to 200 200.01 to 275 225.01 to 300
Proficient 200.01 to 250 200.01 to 225 275.01 to 325 300.01 to 350
Advanced > 250.01 > 225.01 > 325.01 > 350.01
Source: Soares, Jos Francisco. ndice de Desenvolvimento da Educao de So Paulo IDESP:bases metodolgicas. So Paulo Perspec., So Paulo, v. 23, n. 1, p. 29-41, jan./jun. 2009.
14
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
15/56
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
16/56
16
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
17/56
ApproachApproach
Item Response Theory - IRT (Hambleton, 1993) Aggregate the information in the questionnaire into a singlesinglelatentlatent traittrait.
17
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
18/56
ApproachApproach
Item Response Theory - IRT (Hambleton, 1993) Aggregate the information in the questionnaire into a singlesinglelatentlatent traittrait.
Advantages:
Creating a continuous and directly interpretable measure;
Caveat: Measure ma not be ca tured full ;
18
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
19/56
ApproachApproach
Item Response Theory - IRT (Hambleton, 1993) Aggregate the information in the questionnaire into a singlesinglelatentlatent traittrait.
Advantages:
Creating a continuous and directly interpretable measure;
Caveat: Measure ma not be ca tured full ;
However, measure can be validated using statisticalprocedures (polychoric matrix, analysis of eigenvalues and
19
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
20/56
Student and famil back round
Teacher quality
School quality
20
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
21/56
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
22/56
TeachersTeachers qualityquality indicatorsindicators
Teacher uses technology (ICT)
Participatory learning techniques
Formal teaching techniquesTeachers training
Teachers working condition
22
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
23/56
PrincipalsPrincipals qualityquality indicatorsindicators
Principals evaluation by teachers
Principals training
23
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
24/56
SchoolsSchools qualityquality indicatorsindicators
School environment (Principal)
School environment (Teachers)
Quality of the library
-
Operating conditions (Principal)
Equipment
Facilities
24
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
25/56
25
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
26/56
HierarchicalHierarchical ((multilevelmultilevel)) modelmodel
Incorporates the hierarchical structure of dataand allows for joint modeling of the differenteve s o o serva on.
26
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
27/56
HierarchicalHierarchical ((multilevelmultilevel)) modelmodel
Incorporates the hierarchical structure of dataand allows for joint modeling of the differenteve s o o serva on.
Allow the formulation of hypothesis testing and-
school (Cameron and Trivedi, 2005; Raudenbushand Br k 2000
27
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
28/56
MethodologicalMethodological strategystrategy We employed a random intercept linear hierarchical model.
28
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
29/56
MethodologicalMethodological strategystrategy We employed a random intercept linear hierarchical model.
DependentDependent variablevariable: probability of student exclusion
IndependentIndependent variablesvariables:: constructs that measure aspects
of the student's background and quality of school,teacher and principal
29
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
30/56
MethodologicalMethodological strategystrategy We employed a random intercept linear hierarchical model.
DependentDependent variablevariable: probability of student exclusion
IndependentIndependent variablesvariables:: constructs that measure aspects
of the student's background and quality of school,teacher and principal
Construct variables transformation: scale of 0 (worst
We also include controls for school variables: averageSES and proportion of overage students.
30
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
31/56
31
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
32/56
Composition of students in terms of level of learningin Reading in Math by grade. Prova Brasil, 2007
Reading
Math
8th
gr
ade
de
Below basic
Basic
Proficient
Reading
Math
4th
gr
Advanced
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of students
32
Source: Microdata from Prova Brasil 2007
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
33/56
Composition of students in terms of level of learningin Reading in Math by grade. Prova Brasil, 2007
Reading
Math
8th
gr
ade
de
Below basic
Basic
Proficient
Reading
Math
4th
gr
Advanced
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of students
33
Source: Microdata from Prova Brasil 2007
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
34/56
Composition of students in terms of level of learningin Reading in Math by grade. Prova Brasil, 2007
Reading
Math
8th
gr
ade
de
Below basic
Basic
Proficient
Reading
Math
4th
gr
Advanced
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of students
34
Source: Microdata from Prova Brasil 2007
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
35/56
Race/color composition of 4th graders in Brazilian Public
90%
100%
Schools by level of achievement. Brazil, 2007.
60%
70%
80%
fstudents
Asian
Black
30%
40%
50%
or
portion
o
Pardo
White
0%
10%
Below basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Level of Math learning
Source: Microdatafrom ProvaBrasil2007(INEP/MEC).
35
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
36/56
Race/color composition of 4th graders in Brazilian Public
90%
100%
Schools by level of achievement. Brazil, 2007.
60%
70%
80%
fstudents
Asian
Black
30%
40%
50%
or
portion
o
Pardo
White
0%
10%
Below basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Level of Math learning
Source: Microdatafrom ProvaBrasil2007(INEP/MEC).
36
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
37/56
Race/color composition of 4th graders in Brazilian Public
90%
100%
Schools by level of achievement. Brazil, 2007.
60%
70%
80%
fstudents
Asian
Black
30%
40%
50%
or
portion
o
Pardo
White
0%
10%
Below basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Level of Math learning
Source: Microdatafrom ProvaBrasil2007(INEP/MEC).
37
Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
38/56
Below
Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills.
Prova Brasil, 4th grade, 2007
BasicCultural environmentParents involvement
SESSchool environment (Principal)School environment (Teacher)Principal evaluation by teachersQuality of libraryIntra-school cohesion
Operating conditions (Teacher)EquipmentFacilities
Principals trainingTeacher uses technology (ICT)Participatory learning tecniques
Teachers training
Teachers working conditions 38
Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
39/56
Below
Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills.
Prova Brasil, 4th grade, 2007
BasicCultural environment 4.66 4.86 5.12 5.38Parents involvement 6.00 6.23 6.36 6.41
. . . .SES 4.73 4.84 5.12 5.41School environment (Principal) 5.43 5.47 5.55 5.67School environment (Teacher) 6.82 6.87 6.94 7.03Principal evaluation by teachers 4.52 4.56 4.62 4.73Quality of library 5.03 5.13 5.27 5.38Intra-school cohesion 4.62 4.64 4.69 4.78
O eratin conditions Princi al 4.81 4.89 5.00 5.14Operating conditions (Teacher) 5.11 5.19 5.35 5.52Equipment 4.35 4.53 4.81 4.99Facilities 5.08 5.19 5.34 5.46Principals training 4.73 4.83 4.96 5.04Teacher uses technology (ICT) 4.73 4.91 5.14 5.32Participatory learning tecniques 4.84 4.89 4.98 5.09Formal teachin tecni ues 4.93 4.87 4.75 4.66Teachers training 5.14 5.19 5.26 5.31Teachers working conditions 4.95 5.06 5.20 5.28
39
Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
40/56
Below
Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills.
Prova Brasil, 4th grade, 2007
BasicCultural environment 4.66 4.86 5.12 5.38Parents involvement 6.00 6.23 6.36 6.41
. . . .SES 4.73 4.84 5.12 5.41School environment (Principal) 5.43 5.47 5.55 5.67School environment (Teacher) 6.82 6.87 6.94 7.03Principal evaluation by teachers 4.52 4.56 4.62 4.73Quality of library 5.03 5.13 5.27 5.38Intra-school cohesion 4.62 4.64 4.69 4.78
O eratin conditions Princi al 4.81 4.89 5.00 5.14Operating conditions (Teacher) 5.11 5.19 5.35 5.52Equipment 4.35 4.53 4.81 4.99Facilities 5.08 5.19 5.34 5.46Principals training 4.73 4.83 4.96 5.04Teacher uses technology (ICT) 4.73 4.91 5.14 5.32Participatory learning tecniques 4.84 4.89 4.98 5.09Formal teachin tecni ues 4.93 4.87 4.75 4.66Teachers training 5.14 5.19 5.26 5.31Teachers working conditions 4.95 5.06 5.20 5.28
40
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
41/56
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
.
IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69
White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81
Overage student 2.06 1.95 2.04 2.18
SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99
School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89
Number of students 1,569,6621,569,662 1,565,3921,565,392 1,396,0861,396,086 1,359,3751,359,375
Number of schools 37,26337,263 37,24437,244 27,37727,377 27,37827,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables
Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is
associated with a higher probability of exclusion
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
42/56
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
.
IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81
Overage student 2.06 1.95 2.04 2.18
SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99
School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89
Number of students 1,569,662 1,565,392 1,396,086 1,359,375
Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables
Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is
associated with a higher probability of exclusion
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
43/56
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
.
IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69
Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81
Overage student 2.06 1.95 2.04 2.18
SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99
School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89
Number of students 1,569,662 1,565,392 1,396,086 1,359,375
Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378
Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables
Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is
associated with a higher probability of exclusion
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
44/56
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
.
IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69
White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71PardoPardo 0.670.67 0.660.66 0.840.84 0.810.81
Overage student 2.06 1.95 2.04 2.18
SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99
School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89
Number of students 1,569,662 1,565,392 1,396,086 1,359,375
Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378
Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables
Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is
associated with a higher probability of exclusion
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
45/56
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
.
IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69
White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81
OverageOverage studentstudent 2.062.06 1.951.95 2.042.04 2.182.18
SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99
School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89
Number of students 1,569,662 1,565,392 1,396,086 1,359,375
Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378
Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables
Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is
associated with a higher probability of exclusion
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
46/56
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
.
IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69
White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81
Overage student 2.06 1.95 2.04 2.18
SESSES 1.051.05 1.011.01 1.031.03 0.990.99
SchoolSchool SESSES**** 0.550.55 0.550.55 0.650.65 0.640.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89
Number of students 1,569,662 1,565,392 1,396,086 1,359,375
Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378
Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables
Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is
associated with a higher probability of exclusion
Odd ti f th d i t t hi hi l li d l D d t
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
47/56
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
.
IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69
White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81
Overage student 2.06 1.95 2.04 2.18
SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99
School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64ProportionProportion ofof overageoveragestudentsstudents atat schoolschool**** 0.750.75 0.890.89 0.730.73 0.890.89
Number of students 1,569,662 1,565,392 1,396,086 1,359,375
Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378
Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables
Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is
associated with a higher probability of exclusion
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
48/56
p p
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
Prova Brasil 2007 (continued).
Independent variables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Cultural environment 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.90Parental involvement 0.84 0.87 1.05 1.08Student motivation 1.01 1.01 0.92 0.87School environment (Principal) 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.96School environment (Teachers) 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.98
e
expected
that allcoeficients
werer nc pa eva uat on y teac ers . . . .
Quality of the library 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99Intra-school cohesion 1.00* 1.00* 0.99 1.00*Operating conditions (Principal) 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98
smaller
than 1.
. . . .Equipment 1.00* 0.98 0.99 0.98Facilities 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01*Principal's training 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99Teacher uses technology (ICT) 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.98Participatory learning techniques 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.01
Formal teaching techniques 1.02 1.00* 1.03 0.99Teacher's training 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.01Teacher's working condition 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
, , , , , , , ,Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level 48
Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
49/56
p p
variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.
Prova Brasil 2007 (continued).
Independent variables4th grade 8th grade
Reading Math Reading Math
Cultural environment 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.90Parental involvement 0.84 0.87 1.05 1.08Student motivation 1.01 1.01 0.92 0.87School environment (Principal) 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.96School environment (Teachers) 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.98
e
expected
that allcoeficients
werer nc pa eva uat on y teac ers . . . .
Quality of the library 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99Intra-school cohesion 1.00* 1.00* 0.99 1.00*Operating conditions (Principal) 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98
smaller
than 1.
. . . .Equipment 1.00* 0.98 0.99 0.98Facilities 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01*Principal's training 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99Teacher uses technology (ICT) 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.98Participatory learning techniques 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.01
Formal teaching techniques 1.02 1.00* 1.03 0.99Teacher's training 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.01Teacher's working condition 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
, , , , , , , ,Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)
Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level 49
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
50/56
IMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONS
50
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
51/56
Reca
Our definition of school exclusion was basedon reading and math performance of pupils;
51
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
52/56
Reca
Our definition of school exclusion was basedon reading and math performance of pupils;
We studied determinants;
52
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
53/56
Reca
Our definition of school exclusion was basedon reading and math performance of pupils;
We studied determinants;
Our approach was based on latent traitsinvolving characteristics of students, teachers,principals and schools.
53
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
54/56
What determines school exclusion?
Personal attributes (gender, race) Socioeconomic back round arents
involvement, cultural environment)
School delay and peer effects Measures of teachers, school and principals
quality do matter
54
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
55/56
8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final
56/56
AcknowledgmentAcknowledgment UNESCO Office in Brasilia for the funding.
THANK YOU!THANK YOU!
[email protected]@ufmg.br
56
Recommended