Factors contributing to achievement
growth in Chile
Gregory Elacqua
Instituto of Public Policy
School of Economics
Universidad Diego Portales
CHILE
17,269,525 residents
 3,395,845 students
 11,511 schools
 Became an OECD country
in 2009
Sweden
Bulgaria
Thailand
Slovak Rep.
Czech Rep.
Romania
Norway
Ireland
France
Argentina
Netherlands
Japan
Spain
Austria
Russian Fed.
Australia
Canada
United States
Iran
Hungary
Korea, Rep.
Denmark
New Zealand
Italy
Finland
Israel
Mexico
Greece
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Colombia
Slovenia
Poland
Germany
Hong Kong
Portugal
Brazil
Chile
Latvia
Estimated annual test-score gains
(% of standard deviation)
Chile second in annual rate of growth in student achievement (1995-2009)
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
Source: Hanushek, Peterson & Woessman (2012)
Same trend in national tests (SIMCE language and math 4th grade)
275
270
267
265
260
259
255
250
250
245
250
240
235
230
1999
2002
2005
2006
SIMCE lectura
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
SIMCE Matemáticas
Source: SIMCE
Chile in the 90’s
A. Low standard of living
• GDP per capita $5,500 (ranked 6th in Latin America).
• About half of Chileans lived below the poverty line,
and 20% lived in extreme poverty.
• Only half of high school students graduated and 14%
enrolled in college.
B. Low educational expenditures
• USD$360 per student a year.
• Public spending on education 2.4% of GDP vs. 5.5%
in the Netherlands and 5.0% in the US.
C. Inadequate incentives
1. Poorly designed voucher program
i.
Flat voucher
ii.
School selection
iii.
School fees
2. No school accountability
i.
No objective information on school quality
ii.
Schools not held accountable for outcomes
3. No incentives for teachers
i.
ii.
No merit pay
No teacher evaluation
Factors that help to explain achievement growth in Chile
Higher
standard
of living
Increased
spending
Incentives
Educational
Improvement
I. HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING
A. GDP per capita increased by 3 fold (GDP per capita PPP,
constant USD 2008)
$ 16,000
$ 14,000
$ 14,599
$ 12,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 6,000
$ 5,645
$ 4,000
$ 2,000
$1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
Chile
Source: World Bank
B. Ranked 6 in Latin America, today #1 (GDP per capita PPP,
constant USD 2008)
$ 16,000
$ 14,599
$ 14,000
$ 12,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 6,000
$ 5,645
$ 4,000
$ 2,000
$-
1985
Argentina
1990
Brazil
1995
Chile
2000
Mexico
2005
Peru
Uruguay
2008
Source: World Bank
C. Cut poverty rate by two thirds
50%
45%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1987
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2003
2006
2009
Poverty rate
Source: CASEN
D. Eradicated extreme poverty (% extreme poverty)
35
30
25
20
20.3 %
15
10
5
1.1 %
0
1987
1990
Argentina
Brasil
1995
Chile
2000
México
Perú
2006
Uruguay
Source: World Bank
E. High school graduation rates increased rapidly across SES
groups (age 20-24, by income quintiles)
100%
96%
90%
89%
80%
85%
81%
82%
77%
70%
68%
64%
60%
50%
53%
53%
40%
39%
30%
20%
27%
10%
0%
I
II
III
1990
IV
2009
V
Total
F. Young adults have similar attainment as peers in OECD
countries (% with at least upper secondary by age group)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
55-64 años
Turquía
México
Brasil
Italia
Grecia
Nueva Zelanda
Promedio OECD
Reino Unido
Holanda
Australia
Bélgica
Noruega
Francia
Chile
Dinamarca
Irlanda
0
Alemania
10
25-34 años
Source: Education at a Glance, 2008
G. Expansion of higher education
60%
2011: 1,015,000
50%
50%
40%
30%
1984: 180,000
17%
20%
11%
10%
1%
0%
1935
1946
1956
1967
1973
1982
1990
2000
2011
Source: Brunner, 2008; INE; CASEN; MINEDUC.
H. Parents of 15 years old students are more educated than in the
past.
45%
40%
39%
35%
30%
25%
27%
24%
20%
15%
10%
20%
19%
16%
15%
13%
15%
12%
5%
0%
Less than primary Primary completed
Less than high
school
2001
High school
completed
College completed
2010
Source: SIMCE
II. INCREASED EDUCATION
SPENDING
B. Annual per student expenditure has increased fourfold
since 1990. (USD 2011)
$ 1,600
$1,479
$ 1,400
$ 1,200
$ 1,000
$1,067
$ 800
$851
$ 600
$582
$ 400
$360
$ 200
$1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Source: MINEDUC
C. Public and private education spending as % of GDP has
doubled since 1990
8.0
7.0
6.0
2.9
5.0
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
2
2.2
3.1
3
2.7
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.7
1990
1991
1992
1993
2.7
2.5
2.2
2
2.0
1.0
3
2.6
4.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.7
1994
1995
3
3.2
1996
1997
3.5
3.8
3.9
4.1
1999
2000
2001
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.7
2004
2005
3.3
3.6
4.2
0.0
1998
Public spending
2002
2003
2006
2007
2008
Private spending
Source: MINEDUC
D. Expansion of % enrollment in schools with full school day.
80
70
72
60
61
50
40
30
20
10
27
8
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Primary
2003
2004
Secondary
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: MINEDUC
E. Since 1990 teachers’ salaries have increased by 200% in
real terms. (USD 2011)
$ 2,500
$ 2,178
$ 2,000
$ 1,500
$ 1,089
$ 1,000
$ 500
$-
$ 218
$ 135
1990
1992
1994
1996
Teachers' mean salary
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Teachers' minimum salary (entry salary)
2008
Source: MINEDUC, Central Bank of Chile
F. Students/computer ratio declined in the last decade, 79 to 9.
90
80
79
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
9
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Source: Enlaces, 2010
G. Targeted programs (P-900, Escuelas Criticas, Liceos Prioritarios,
Montegrande)
Source: Enlaces, 2010
III. INCENTIVES
A. Improvements to voucher design
250
$ 10
200
i.
Differentiated voucher
$ 80
150
ii. School selection banned
100
123
50
$ 123
iii. No school fees for low SES
students
0
Before SEP
Base voucher
Preferential voucher
After SEP
Concentration voucher
Source: MINEDUC, 2009
Private voucher school enrollment expands
90
80
78
70
60
60
56
49
50
40
32
35
43
30
20
10
Municipal
Particular Subvencionado
Part Pagado
15
7
8
9
8
1981
1990
2000
2010
0
Source: MINEDUC
More than 1 million students attend for-profit schools in Chile (1/3
of enrollments
School type Schools
% Schools
Students
% Students
Public
5.614
54%
1.498.352
46%
For-profit
3.256
31%
1.054.261
31%
Non-profit
954
9%
551.028
17%
Non-voucher
647
6%
232.821
7%
10.471
100%
3.336.462
100%
Total
Source: MINEDUC
More choice for low SES parents: In this low SES urban neighborhood
in Santiago, the supply of schools almost doubled in 10 years.
Source: MINEDUC
B. Test scores widely disseminated to parents, schools,
and researchers
Public Rankings
of academic
results of schools
Information to parents
about own school’s
academic result evolution
and compared to similar
schools
Website focused in informing parents
about school’s alternatives: price, academic
results, location, etc.
C. School accountability program
i.
Schools are ranked by adjusted
test scores and improvements
ii. High ranking schools have
autonomy and low ranking
schools must present
improvement plans
iii. Failing schools schools can be
closed
D. National teacher merit pay program and national
public school teacher evaluation
E.
Most growth explained by gains by low and middle SES students: test
score gap reduced by ½ of a standard deviation in language 1/3 in
mathematics on national test (SIMCE)
320
302
299
300
280
260
50
76
240
220
249
226
200
2002
2005
High
2006
Medium high
2007
2008
Medium
2009
Medium low
2010
2011
Low
Source: SIMCE
F. Most growth explained by gains by low and middle SES students: Chile is the
country that made the most progress in narrowing the achievement gap
between 2000 and 2009 in PISA literacy (13 points)
550
Literacy score in PISA
512
500
479
107
450
400
350
120
405
359
300
2000
High
2006
Medium high
Medium
PISA: Literacy
2009
Medium low
Low
Source: PISA
Conclusions
1. Higher standard of living
2. Increased spending
3. Incentives
Japón
Suecia
Bélgica
Islandia
Austria
Noruega
Francia
USA
Dinamarca
Suiza
España
República Checa
Italia
Alemania
Liechtenstein
Hungría
Polonia
Grecia
Portugal
Rusia
Latvia
Israel
Luxemburgo
Tailandia
Bulgaria
México
Argentina
Chile
Brasil
Indonesia
Albania
Perú
Suiza
Islandia
USA
Polonia
Liechtenstein
Suecia
Alemania
Irlanda
Francia
Dinamarca
Reino Unido
Hungría
Portugal
Italia
Latvia
Grecia
España
República Checa
Israel
Luxemburgo
Austria
Rusia
Chile
Bulgaria
México
Tailandia
Brasil
Indonesia
Argentina
Albania
Perú
Australia
Nueva Zelanda
Canadá
Finlandia
PISA 2000 results in Literacy
Noruega
0
Reino Unido
100
Bélgica
200
Hong Kong-China
300
Australia
400
Corea
500
Japón
PISA 2009
Irlanda
600
Nueva Zelanda
Canadá
Hong Kong-China
Finlandia
Corea
PISA 2009 results in literacy
Challenge: Still a long way to go
PISA 2000
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Factors that help to explain achievement growth in Chile
Sense of urgency
Higher
standard
of living
Increased
spending
Better
incentives
Educational
Improvement
Students and families put the quality of education at the center of
the national debate
2006: High school students
2011: University students
Weak link: Chilean teachers lag behind
Elementary-level future teachers’ mathematics content knowledge
623
Chinese Taipei
590
Singapore
543
Switzerland
Russian Federation
535
Thailand
528
Norway
519
United States
518
510
Germany
500
International
Poland
490
Malaysia
488
Spain
481
Botswana
441
Philippines
440
413
Chile
345
Georgia
$-
$ 100
$ 200
$ 300
$ 400
$ 500
$ 600
$ 700
Source: 2008 TEDS-M
Source: 2008 TEDS-M
Weak link: Chilean teachers lag behind
Elementary-level future teachers’ pedagogy content knowledge
Singapore
593
Chinese Taipei
592
Norway
545
United States
544
Switzerland
537
Russian Federation
512
Thailand
506
Malaysia
503
Germany
502
International
500
492
Spain
478
Poland
457
Philippines
448
Botswana
425
Chile
345
Georgia
$-
$ 100
$ 200
$ 300
$ 400
$ 500
$ 600
$ 700
Source: 2008 TEDS-M
Source: 2008 TEDS-M
Weak link: Content and pedagogical knowledge
0.8
% of Teachers in each level
0.7
69%
0.6
0.5
50%
0.4
42%
0.3
29%
0.2
0.1
8%
2%
0.0
Pedagogical knowledge
Outstanding
Disciplinary knowledge
Acceptable
Insufficient
Source: INICIA 2011
Factors contributing to achievement
growth in Chile
Gregory Elacqua
Instituto of Public Policy
School of Economics
Universidad Diego Portales
Descargar

Diapositiva 1 - Harvard Kennedy School