PUBLIC
DOCUMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
SECTOR FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILHOOD DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION DIVISION
May 2013
This document was prepared by: Emiliana Vegas (SCL/EDU) Division Chief; Katherina Hruskovec Gonzalez and Tania Vera (SCL/EDU) assisted in production of this document. The authors are grateful for the valuable comments received at the various stages of preparation of this document. They particularly appreciate the contributions from the SCL/EDU team, from Carola Álvarez, Andrés Consuegra, Morgan Doyle, Mercedes Mateo-Berganza Díaz, Judith Morrison, Claudia Piras, Laura Profeta, and Jaime Vargas. Lastly, the authors appreciate the comments received from the members of the Policy Committee of the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors, who contributed significantly to improving the final document. The unauthorized commercial use of Bank documents is prohibited and may be punishable under the Bank’s policies and/or applicable laws. Copyright © [2013] Inter-American Development Bank. All rights reserved; may be freely reproduced for any non-commercial purpose. Under the Access to Information Policy, this document is subject to public disclosure.
CONTENTS
I.
THE SECTOR FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF EXISTING REGULATIONS AND THE STRATEGY ON SOCIAL POLICY FOR EQUITY AND PRODUCTIVITY .................................. 1 A. B.
II.
INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE IDB’S WORK ........................................................ 2 A. B. C.
III.
C. D. E.
Student learning outcomes are very low at all socioeconomic levels ..................... 10 Student learning outcomes are highly unequal among socioeconomic, indigenous, afro-descendant, groups and also vary by gender and geographical location............................................................................................... 10 Learning outcomes are below those in developed countries and in countries with similar per capita income levels ...................................................................... 11 Learning outcomes are insufficient to meet new societal demands ........................ 12 Factors that influence learning outcomes in Latin America.................................... 12
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE IDB’S EXPERIENCE IN EDUCATION ..................................... 15 A. B. C. D.
V.
Students ...................................................................................................................... 3 Schools ....................................................................................................................... 5 Education system ....................................................................................................... 8
MAIN CHALLENGE FOR THE REGION .................................................................................... 9 A. B.
IV.
The Education and Early Childhood Development SFD as part of existing regulations.................................................................................................................. 1 The Education and Early Childhood Development SFD as part of the Strategy on Social Policy for Equity and Productivity (document GN-2588-4) ............................................................................................................... 1
Reports of the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) ..................................... 16 Results of the Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM) ..................................... 17 Lessons learned from experience with IDB operations........................................... 18 The Bank’s comparative advantages in the education sector.................................. 20
GOAL, PRINCIPLES, DIMENSIONS OF SUCCESS AND LINES OF ACTION TO GUIDE THE BANK’S OPERATIONAL AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES .................................................... 21 A. B. C. D. E.
Dimension 1. High goals for student learning guide the delivery and monitoring of education services on all levels ........................................................ 22 Dimension 2. New students enter ready to learn ..................................................... 23 Dimension 3. All students have access to effective teachers .................................. 24 Dimension 4. All schools have adequate resources and are able to use them for learning...................................................................................................... 25 Dimension 5. All children and young people gain the skills necessary to make a productive contribution to society ........................................................................... 26
I.
THE SECTOR FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF EXISTING REGULATIONS AND THE STRATEGY ON SOCIAL POLICY FOR EQUITY AND PRODUCTIVITY
A.
The Education and Early Childhood Development SFD as part of existing regulations
1.1
This Sector Framework Document (SFD) for Education and Early Childhood Development has been prepared in accordance with document GN-2670-1, which governs the strategies, policies, sector frameworks, and guidelines to set out the Bank’s goals in Education and Early Childhood Development (ECD) and guide its work on knowledge generation and dialogue with the countries, their governments, and private borrowers. This Sector Framework Document will be complemented with the Social Protection and Health and Labor Markets SFDs to address ECD and school-to-work transition projects, respectively.
1.2
The Education and Early Childhood Development SFD covers the seven elements to be included in sector frameworks. Once approved, it will supersede the Strategy for Higher Education (document GN-1974-5), the Strategy for Reforming Primary and Secondary Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (document GN-2067-2), the Education Sector Policy (Operational Policy OP-743),1 and the Guidelines for Improved Performance in Education, which will no longer be in effect as indicated in paragraph 1.25 of document GN-2670-1.
1.3
The Bank will prepare an update to the SFD three years after its approval. This is a flexible document that will enable the Bank to address the diversity of challenges and contexts faced by the 26 borrowing member countries, and will govern lending in the education sector for both sovereign-guaranteed and non-sovereign guaranteed operations. This SFD is also adaptable to the specific conditions and preferences of each country, in terms of both design and implementation of education and ECD projects.
B.
The Education and Early Childhood Development SFD as part of the Strategy on Social Policy for Equity and Productivity (document GN-2588-4)
1.4
This SFD is consistent with the Strategy on Social Policy for Equity and Productivity (hereinafter “Social Strategy”), the objective of which is to improve the effectiveness of the Bank in promoting social policies that enhance equity and productivity in the region. To do so, it focuses on interventions that increase human capital, as a key factor in economic growth.
1.5
The Social Strategy establishes that “building human capital requires investments over the entire life cycle—from activities for children at the youngest ages, before they enter school, to the school years, to programs that facilitate labor market insertion and life-long learning.” In other words, the strategy takes a “life-cycle” approach and recognizes that education and learning are factors with a sustained
1
This policy is set forth in one of the Bank’s operating manuals.
-2-
impact on equity enhancement, poverty reduction, and productivity gains. In fact, the strategy identifies investing in early childhood, improving school quality, and addressing youth-at-risk as priority areas for Bank lending and analytical work. It also emphasizes the importance of quality in delivering these services. 1.6
This SDF sets out the lines of action that will directly contribute to the materialization of the topics of education and ECD provided for in the Social Strategy. In its implementation, the Bank will seek to adapt the interventions to the specific country needs and demands and to the particularities of each client. In this regard, this SFD is not restrictive but rather strategic and indicative, while the specificity of the interventions will draw upon the Sector Notes and respective country strategies, pursuant to country demand.
1.7
The structure of the rest of the document is as follows: the second section outlines the main findings of international evidence on the effectiveness of education policies and programs. The third section takes a closer look at progress on education in the region, and identifies the main challenge faced by Latin America and the Caribbean in light of the latest research on education and ECD. The fourth section summarizes lessons learned from the recommendations of the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE), Development Effective Matrix (DEM), project completion reports (PCRs), and the recent analyses of the execution of Bank operations. The Bank’s competitive advantages for work in education are also assessed. These first four sections lead into the fifth, which sets out the Bank’s goal in education and ECD and seeks to provide guidance to project teams to reach that goal. The key Dimensions of Success are presented, describing the features of education systems that have achieved strong results in terms of learning outcomes (by international measurements) and can guide the Bank’s work in this area. Within each dimension, we discuss in turn: (i) lines of action: describing the actions that should be taken to achieve the Dimensions of Success in education systems, and provide guidance, based on empirical evidence, for the Bank’s client countries on the design of education policies and programs aimed at providing quality education for all; and (ii) Bank-financed activities: comprising a list of specific education and ECD activities and operations that the Bank proposes to prioritize—given the goal, Dimensions of Success, and lines of action—in dialogue with the governments and private institutions of borrowing member countries over the next three years.
II. INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATION
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE IDB’S WORK 2.1
Recent international evidence indicates that quality of education—measured as learning outcomes on international tests—is the factor explaining the positive relationship between education and countries’ economic development (Barro 2001; Pritchett, 2001; Hanushek and Woessmann, 2012). Additionally, the international evidence also suggests that both basic and advanced skills are correlated with economic growth (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2008).
-3-
2.2
Moreover, the quality of education is related to labor market insertion and higher incomes. A number of studies have found a strong correlation between student test scores and their future earnings (UNESCO, 2004). Moreover, there is increasingly strong empirical evidence that education quality, not quantity, can contribute to narrowing learning gaps among students belonging to different geographical, socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups. For this reason, ensuring that children learn, rather than simply attend school, is a necessary condition for guaranteeing equal learning opportunities (Vegas and Petrow, 2008; Reimers, 2000).
2.3
Multiple factors affect student learning, and therefore the skills acquired by individuals throughout their lives. Not all learning and skills are acquired in the education system. However, its core mission is to foster the cognitive and noncognitive skills that will ensure success for the children and young people of the region. This section reviews the literature on education policies that improve learning and the various factors affecting it. To structure the presentation of the evidence, a model is used that represents the multiple interactions between the factors affecting student learning and illustrates how they relate with one another and, in turn, with education policy, which is placed at the center due to its crosscutting nature (Figure 1). In this model, these factors can be grouped into three categories: students, schools, and the education system.
2.4
The model does not ignore the context, which is the backdrop for these interactions. Although the economic, social, and political contexts (both national and international) can favor or hinder the development of public policies to improve learning outcomes (Vegas and Petrow, 2008), this sector framework document (SFD) will concentrate on the factors on which educational policy can have an effective impact.
A.
Students 1. Home-related factors, including socioeconomic level and health, affect student learning
2.5
Since the publication of the Coleman Report (1966), the education literature has emphasized the role that home-related factors play in children’s and young people’s learning both inside and outside school from early childhood through youth.
2.6
Families’ socioeconomic level, and particularly the role of the parents, is fundamental in children’s learning. Parents help with homework, teach them, motivate them to learn, and encourage them to complete primary and secondary education. Moreover, the parents choose the school where their children are enrolled and the age at which they start. Some families at lower socioeconomic levels do not enroll their children on time as a result of health or nutrition problems, lack of information, or the costs associated with attending school. Entering the education system late has serious consequences for students’ cognitive development and tends to affect their subsequent path in education and employment in adulthood (Schady, 2012).
-4-
2.7
Students from vulnerable households tend to drop out of school more often than their peers at higher socioeconomic levels (Cardoso and Verner, 2006; Bassi, Busso, Urzúa, and Vargas, 2012). They are also more likely to start work at an earlier age, in order to contribute to the family income. Socioeconomically vulnerable households tend to have few resources to stimulate learning, such as books at home, which have been shown to have a positive impact on student performance (Casassus, Cusato, Froemel, and Palafox, 2000; Kirsch, De Jong, Lafontaine, McQueen, Mendelovits, and Monseur, 2000; Woessmann, 2003, 2004). Additionally, the parents’ level of schooling and their occupation are strongly related to their children’s learning as students (Casassus, Cusato, Froemel, and Palafox, 2000).
2.8
The tendency to suffer health problems and undernourishment is also higher among the lower socioeconomic strata. Consequently, children born into poor households have a greater likelihood of suffering delays in their socioemotional and cognitive development (Alderman, Behrman, Lavy, and Menon, 1997).
2.9
Although home-related factors are fundamental, there are empirical studies confirming that education policy and, above all, what happens at the educational institutions, have a major influence on student learning and their educational trajectory (Rutter, Maughan, Mortimer and Ouston, 1980). This SFD therefore focuses on education policy interventions geared toward improving the quality of learning, taking a life-cycle perspective. 2. Preschool education improves learning over the whole educational trajectory
2.10
There is a broad consensus in the literature on early childhood development (ECD) that the period from the prenatal stage through to approximately age six is critical for children to enter primary school ready to learn (Heckman J.J., 2006). High quality early childhood care programs have proven to be effective and economically efficient means of ensuring children develop properly and enter primary school ready to learn (Alderman and Vegas, 2011).
2.11
For example, the expansion of preschool education in Uruguay gave students an advantage of almost a third of a year’s learning over students who did not attend preschool (Berlinski, Galiani, and Manacorda, 2007). In Argentina, a study on the effect of attending preschool concluded that a year of attendance increased third grade average scores in mathematics and Spanish (Berlinski, Galiani, and Gertler, 2006). Similarly, in the continuation of research initiated in Jamaica in 1991, which sought to demonstrate the impact of teaching mothers to interact with their children to improve their socioemotional and cognitive skills, it was estimated that the children who were stimulated received an average increase of 50% in their incomes 20 years later (Gertler et al. 2012).
2.12
The aforementioned studies demonstrate that interventions in early childhood aimed at children from socioeconomically disadvantaged households contribute substantially to narrowing the child development disparities deriving from
-5-
households’ socioeconomic level (Alderman and Vegas, 2011; Vegas and Santibáñez, 2010). In addition, investments in preschool education programs aimed at disadvantaged groups are also more cost-effective than investments at other levels of education (Heckman, J.J., 2006). This observation is particularly significant for ethnic groups. B.
Schools 1. Effective teachers enhance student learning
2.13
A growing body of research suggests that the teacher is one of the main factors helping to improve student achievement and ensure equality of learning opportunities (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2012; Hanushek, 2011; Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain, 2005). Although the impact of teachers on learning is well documented, the research has shed less light on the aspects of teaching that lead to the best student performance. There is no empirical link between easily measurable variables, such as years of education and service, and student learning outcomes. Nevertheless, a study looking at students and teachers in North Carolina (United States) over a ten-year period concluded that teachers’ knowledge of the subject they taught, measured by scores obtained on tests and accreditations (in a fairly demanding teacher accreditation system), have positive effects on student achievement, particularly in mathematics (Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, 2007).
2.14
These findings have motivated researchers to look more closely at teacher policy options that might be effective ways of improving the quality of student learning. A recent study establishes eight policies associated with teacher effectiveness and implemented by successful education systems (World Bank, 2012). These policies are: a. Setting clear student learning goals for teachers. Education systems can set clear standards that guide teachers and indicate what learning students should have attained at each grade (see paragraph 2.19b). b. Attracting the best into teaching. Countries that consistently place at the top of international learning tests make efforts to attract the best people into teaching, which is one of the factors associated with good teacher performance (Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber, 2010). It is therefore necessary that the incentives to go into teaching, such as salaries, working conditions, and professional development opportunities, are competitive with other professions. c. Preparing teachers with useful training and experience. Appropriate training, both before entering the classroom and while in service, is important to achieving teacher effectiveness (Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, 2007). There is insufficient evidence to assert that any one type of training is better than another, but it is known that teaching tools should be balanced with specific content. The majority of successful education systems also support new
-6-
teachers with onboarding programs to facilitate their transition into teaching practice. d. Matching teachers’ skills with students’ needs. Education systems can create the right incentives to ensure that the most effective teachers teach in the areas where their skills are most needed, which is usually at schools in districts serving disadvantaged populations. If teachers decide for themselves where to work, they will naturally gravitate to those schools serving students from higher socioeconomic groups, where resources tend to be more plentiful and there are fewer obstacles to teaching. This phenomenon has been widely documented in the United States (Ingersoll, 2002). A study on the allocation and mobility of teachers in Uruguay also reports that teachers with more years of education and experience tend to choose to work at schools with students from socioeconomically advantaged households and that, partly as a consequence of this, teacher turnover in these schools is much higher than in those serving students from households that are not vulnerable (Vegas, Urquiola, and Cerdán-Infantes, 2006). In addition, teachers’ skills need to be suited to teaching children with different cultural and linguistic experiences and of diverse abilities, ranging from those with special needs, including physical disabilities and learning impairments, to the exceptionally talented. e. Leading teachers with strong principals. There is a wealth of literature suggesting that when principals have the power to decide what happens at the school, learning improves because good principals tend to hire and retain good teachers and dismiss poor ones (see paragraph 2.19g; Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff, 2012). Likewise, the fact that principals are able to select text books, decide on resource allocation and administrative matters, among other things, means they use resources more efficiently and in tune with their context. Successful education systems tend to invest in training programs for principals that enable them to lead processes of school improvement and exercise teaching leadership. f. Monitoring teaching and learning. Monitoring makes it possible to identify groups and schools that are not achieving adequate results, so that corrective action can be taken in time. For this reason, successful education systems are able to determine precisely what their students are learning, what their teachers are teaching, and how they are teaching it. In systems that do not achieve high outcomes, it has been documented that wasted teaching time is a serious obstacle to learning. Whereas in countries with low student outcomes just 25% of school time is devoted to learning, in an efficient classroom 90% is devoted to learning (Abadzi, 2006; Bruns, Evans, and Luque, 2012). Data gathering and measurement make it possible to detect any failures in the system getting in the way of teaching and learning (see paragraph 2.19b). g. Supporting teachers to improve instruction. Policies that expose teachers to “best practices” for subsequent sharing among colleagues in the educational community tend to have positive impacts on learning. Other types of
-7-
professional development, such as mentoring and joining teacher support networks, have also been found to be positively associated with teacher performance (see paragraph 2.19g; Rockoff, 2008). h. Motivating teachers to perform. Education systems can motivate teachers to improve their performance and be more effective. This is achieved by creating accountability mechanisms that penalize undesirable conduct in the classroom and by establishing mechanisms to reward teachers who excel. Paying teachers for what they know and do, rather than for their years of training and service, is part of this reward system, and there is evidence that it can improve student learning (Lavy, 2005; Bruns, Filmer, and Patrinos, 2011). Obtaining positive results depends on having an effective incentive scheme, which needs to be based on factors teachers are able to control (Mizala and Romaguera, 2005). Incentives do not necessarily have to be monetary: recognition and professional development opportunities are also incentives that can be used to retain and attract the best to teaching careers (see paragraph 2.19h). 2. Investment in school infrastructure, including technology, must be aligned with other factors affecting learning 2.15
Infrastructure is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for learning. In other words, if there is no effective strategy for their use in teaching and learning, the relationship between learning and investment in school resources is weak. For example, although investments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) in schools can contribute to preparing students for new labor market challenges, the evidence for its actual effect on student learning is mixed (Hanushek, E.A., 2006; Severin and Capota, 2012; Cristia, Ibarrán, Cueto, Santiago, and Severin, 2012). The only education resource found to be strongly linked to educational quality is access to textbooks (Harbison and Hanushek, 1992; Glewwe, Humpage, Humpage, and Ravina, 2011). Researchers agree that the way resources are invested is what makes the difference in terms of quality and equity. 3. The quality of education also affects retention and graduation rates and young people’s potential to make a productive contribution to society
2.16
A strong connection has been established between household socioeconomic level and school dropout rates (see paragraph 2.5). Yet there are other determining factors on the education supply side. One of them is the relevance of the content taught at school. A study with primary school children in Egypt on the reasons for dropping out of school suggests that students are more likely to drop out if the education they receive there is of low quality (Hanushek, Lavy, and Hitomi, 2006). Other research involving Brazilian students aged 15 to 17 indicates “lack of interest” as the main reason for dropping out of school (Fundação Getulio Vargas, 2009). These findings concur with the Household Survey, which found that over 40% of respondents in the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica said that they had stopped studying out of a “lack of interest.” In Latin America, dropping out of school as a result of a lack of interest may be related to the poor rate of return on
-8-
secondary education in comparison with tertiary and primary education. Other factors associated with dropping out of school include being too old, repeating years, teen pregnancy, and poor performance in previous years (Fernandes, 2009/2010; Gremaud, 2010; Florez and Soto, 2007). 2.17
In order to cut dropout rates, education needs to stimulate young people’s interest and benefit them over the medium and long term by contributing effectively to their successful transition to the world of work and society in general. Now, technological progress and the globalized world mean that most jobs today require a “package” of cognitive2 and socioemotional3 skills to perform successfully in work and society (Bassi, Busso, Urzúa, and Vargas, 2012; Maxwell, 2007). In fact, high-level skills are more and more important, as countries seek to achieve higher levels of development, since industries today require workers to be more productive (IFC, 2013).
C.
Education system
2.18
Most systems rely on mixed provision, with education services delivered by both public and private actors. Thus, although the State does not always provide services directly, it has the role of ensuring quality and equity in education at all educational establishments on all levels, independently of whether they are managed publicly or privately.
2.19
An effective quality assurance system for education sets specific goals for all actors and makes them responsible for achieving them (Vegas and Petrow, 2008; Vegas and Paglayan, 2010). However, the fact that there is no one single formula to ensure education quality—successful education systems are organized in different ways— seems to suggest that success depends on applying a vision consistently and on having a consistent institutional framework. These visions can be situated on a continuum: at one end are education systems where the role of the State is limited and local governments and schools enjoy maximum autonomy; at the other end of the scale are those where the central government plays a much stronger steering role in setting the rules by which schools and local and regional governments work. The role the State plays in education and its vision determine the way in which the eight functions essential to ensuring quality are applied: a. Standards of performance: Top-performing education systems set clear learning goals for the minimum content and skills all students are expected to have attained when passing from one level of the education system to another. These learning goals guide the work of teachers and principals (see paragraph 2.14a).
2 3
Cognitive skills are those related to knowledge, e.g., reading, math, or science skills. Socioemotional skills are those related to personality traits. These skills are moderately correlated with cognitive skills (Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, and Weel, 2008; Carneiro and Heckman, 2003; Cunha, Heckman, Lochner, and Masterov, 2006).
-9-
b. Performance assessments: Assessments based on education standards are done to measure the knowledge students have acquired. They can be used for decision-making as they enable weaknesses in the system to be detected and the necessary corrective measures taken to optimize teaching (see paragraph 2.14f). c. Performance information: The results of assessments are disseminated in the media and made available to local and regional governments, schools, teachers, students, parents, and the general public. d. Impact evaluation of policies and programs: An education quality assurance system evaluates the impact of education system policies and programs and incorporates this information in updates to existing policies and the design of new ones (see paragraph 2.14f). e. Operational requirements: Education systems establish rules ranging from entry requirements for students to the professional requirements for teachers and schools. f. Sufficient and equitably distributed resources: There are administrative, financial, and management procedures covering everything from school funding mechanisms to processes for transferring funds transparently to system actors. g. Autonomy and intervention and support: Quality assurance systems provide support and guidance to help schools meet performance standards. Mechanisms to assist individuals and institutions in these tasks include autonomy, technical/pedagogical support, and networks of both public and private institutions (see paragraphs 2.14e and 2.14g). h. Accountability and consequences: Students, teachers, and other institutions involved in improving the quality of education face consequences for their actions (rewards and penalties) (see paragraph 2.14h). III. MAIN CHALLENGE FOR THE REGION4 3.1
4
5
Latin America has succeeded in raising enrollment rates at all levels of education over the last two decades (see Figure 1). In the early 1990s, very few children took part in early childhood development (ECD) programs run by ministries of education: just 8% of three-year olds, and 3% of two-year olds (Alfonso, Bos, Duarte, and Rondón, 2012). Today, approximately 14% of two-year olds and 35% of three-year olds take part in ECD programs run by ministries of education.5 Over
This section includes some of the content and statistics contained in “Lineamientos para un mejor desempeño en educación” [Guidelines for better performance in education], prepared by the Education Division (SCL/EDU) (2012). Total ECD coverage also includes programs run by other governmental and nongovernmental institutions. This SFD focuses on preschool education programs.
- 10 -
this same period, primary schooling has become almost universal in the region, and secondary education enrollment coverage has risen from 69% to 80% (Alfonso, Bos, Duarte, and Rondón, 2012). Moreover, it has been documented that new students joining the system are drawn from the lowest income quintile, which is evidence of a substantial improvement in equity in access to education in the region (see Figure 2). Despite this progress, national, regional, and international studies indicate that learning outcomes remain low and very uneven, falling well short of other countries and failing to meet society’s new demands. For this reason, the main challenge faced by Latin America and the Caribbean is improving its children’s and young people’s learning to ensure they have the necessary skills to maximize their potential in the world of work, enjoy a healthy life, and contribute to society. A.
Student learning outcomes are very low at all socioeconomic levels
3.2
Although in terms of quality it is important to highlight that several countries in the region have recently improved the scores obtained on international tests (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico), learning outcomes remain low in most countries of the region (OECD, 2009). According to the results of the Second Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (SERCE),6 almost two thirds of Latin American students do not achieve a satisfactory score in reading and mathematics. These findings are particularly relevant as they reveal that children who complete the first part of the cycle do not acquire the basic skills they need to perform successfully as they progress through the education system (Alfonso, Bos, Duarte, and Rondón, 2012). Additionally, just 54% of the region’s students attain at least level 2 skills on the 2009 Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) test, which are the skills considered essential today in order to participate effectively and productively in society (OECD, 2011; Bos, Rondón, and Schwartz, 2012).
3.3
The situation in the Caribbean is similar. For example, the percentage of secondary level graduates whose performance is between excellent and good on the Caribbean Examination Council mathematics test declined from 41% to 35% from 2010 to 2011 (CxC, 2012).7
B.
Student learning outcomes are highly unequal among socioeconomic, indigenous, afro-descendant, groups and also vary by gender and geographical location
3.4
In addition to low average learning outcomes, there are significant disparities among the test scores of students belonging to different socioeconomic levels, living in rural areas, and belonging to indigenous and afro-descendant groups. A third-grade student belonging to the poorest quintile has a 12% probability of
6
7
The Second Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (SERCE) is an international test administered to third and sixth grade students in 15 Latin American countries in 2006. This includes results of exams for students in Antigua and Babuda, Anguila, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Granada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Santa Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
- 11 -
obtaining a satisfactory score in reading, whereas a student in the wealthiest quintile has a probability of 56%. In mathematics, this comparison is 10% versus 48%. In sixth grade, the average number of students achieving satisfactory levels on tests continues to be low, and the disparities between students in different socioeconomic quintiles remain wide (OREALC/UNESCO and LLECE, 2010; Duarte, Bos, and Moreno, 2010). The learning gap between indigenous and nonindigenous students in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, and Peru is more than 15 percentage points in language and mathematics in third and sixth grades, and in science in the sixth grade (OREALC/UNESCO and LLECE, 2010; Alfonso, Bos, Duarte, and Rondón, 2012). In general, according to the PISA 2009 test, the region’s girls obtain higher scores in reading, while boys do better at math, with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago, which is the only country of the region where girls do better than boys in math on the PISA test (OECD, 2009; Ganimian and Solano, 2011). Gender gaps in favor of boys in mathematics appear to widen over time (SERCE 2009; TIMSS 2011). One could therefore reason that the region’s boys might find it easier to access courses of study for scientific degrees, which tend to be better remunerated in the job market, whereas girls tend to study for humanities degrees. C.
Learning outcomes are below those in developed countries and in countries with similar per capita income levels
3.5
Similarly, in international tests of learning the region’s countries show very low performance and high inequality compared to other countries. The 2007 results of the Trends in International Math and Science Studies (TIMSS)8 test rank Colombia and El Salvador—the two countries that took part—in positions 40 and 45, respectively, out of a total of 48 countries. Similarly, the scores obtained on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)9 test indicate that the Latin American countries taking part are in the bottom third of the ranking compared to other countries (see Figure 3).
3.6
According to PISA, 46% of Latin American and Caribbean students do not possess the essential skills necessary to participate effectively and productively in society (they do not achieve level 2), as defined by the PISA 2009 test. In OECD countries this percentage is just 18%. For low-income students in the region, the differences are even more pronounced: 66% lack these essential skills. This low performance by the region’s students is also apparent when compared with countries with similar levels of per capita income, such as Russia, Turkey, and certain countries in Eastern Europe and Asia (Bos, Rondón, and Schwartz, 2012).
8
9
The Trends in International Math and Science Studies (TIMSS) test was developed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, and is administered every four years to students in fourth and eighth grade around the world. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a test of learning achievements administered every three years by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to evaluate 15-year-olds’ knowledge and skills.
- 12 -
D.
Learning outcomes are insufficient to meet new societal demands
3.7
The empirical evidence suggests that there is a disconnect between the skills sought by the labor market—at least as far as the formal sector and competitive segments are concerned—and the skills taught in schools (Bassi, Busso, Urzúa, and Vargas, 2012). In an IDB survey in 2010 of approximately 1,200 companies in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, over 90% of the businesspeople interviewed were of the view that the skills they were looking for were different from just five years ago. In particular, employers reported socioemotional skills to be most sought after, and that they have difficulty finding them among secondary school leavers in the countries evaluated. In the study, just 12% of respondents said they had no difficulty finding the skills their firm requires (see Figure 4). In a similar study, performed in 2008 in countries of the English-speaking Caribbean, the firms surveyed also noted difficulties in finding candidates with the required skills and knowledge (Blom and Hobbs, 2008).
3.8
Additionally, in a recent study by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) that surveyed global companies operating in all parts of the world, 12.5% of interviewees in Latin America and the Caribbean reported the lack of training and skills as the first obstacle they face, whereas in Sub-Saharan Africa this percentage is just 3.2% (IFC, 2013).
3.9
The connection between the skills sought and the skills acquired has important consequences in terms of employability and income. One study that uses data from the National Child Development Study of the United States showed that the magnitude of the contribution of noncognitive skills to the gender salary gap was underestimated by 18 percentage points (Nilolaou, 2012).
E.
Factors that influence learning outcomes in Latin America
3.10
Latin America and the Caribbean is a highly heterogeneous region with wide variations between countries and even within the same country. However, there are a number of phenomena or trends that may be considered common to the majority of countries. As already established, multiple factors affect student learning. This section reviews the state of learning in the region in light of the factors affecting it (students, school, and education system) (see paragraph 2.3). 1. Students
3.11
One child in five in Latin America and the Caribbean is extremely poor (ECLAC and CELADE, 2010). For youths the situation is similar. It is estimated that almost 25% of 15- to 19-year-olds are unable to meet basic needs, including food (ECLAC and UNFPA, 2012). These figures indicate that many students in Latin America are exposed to severe poverty, malnutrition, and insanitary conditions, contributing to school dropout and affecting learning from early education through to the final stages of secondary education (see paragraphs 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7). In Ecuador a study was done with a sample of 3,000 preschool children living in poverty, to explore the relationship between the results of student assessments and socioeconomic
- 13 -
status, child health, and quality of childrearing. This research showed that home economics and the parents’ education are related to better cognitive development in early childhood (Paxson and Schady, 2007). 3.12
Interventions in preschool education that aim to make up for the shortcomings the most disadvantaged students face before entering the education system are few and limited in scope. Indeed, teachers specializing in preschool are often subject to laxer regulations, earn lower salaries than their peers in other grades, and are less academically qualified (see paragraph 2.10; Verdisco and Ñopo, 2012).
3.13
At the youth level, the findings of the Bank’s Household Surveys showed a positive change in that the number of students aged 16 to 24 has increased (IDB 2004; Bassi, Busso, Urzúa, and Vargas, 2012). However, school dropout remains a major challenge for the region, and almost half of Latin America’s young people still fail to complete their schooling. Two of the main reasons they cite are the need to start work early to help support their family and a lack of interest in education. Although school dropout remains a challenge, the percentage of young people graduating from secondary school in Latin America and the Caribbean has risen in the past 30 years. Each year, millions of young people graduate from secondary school, and just a fraction are accepted into postsecondary educational institutions. Despite this progress, however, there are still significant gaps for ethnic groups. 2. Schools
3.14
It has been established that the teacher is the most import factor in student achievement, and teaching needs to attract, develop, and retain highly qualified people, if learning outcomes are to improve (see paragraph 2.14a). However, recent studies in Latin America suggest that the teaching profession does not attract the best people, and that promotion and length of service in the profession are all too often unrelated to effectiveness (Vegas and Petrow, 2008; Verdisco and Ñopo, 2012). A recent study found that more than one third of third- and sixth-grade teachers are selected by authorities outside the school with no public competitive process (Duarte, Bos, and Moreno, 2012; see Table 1). Nor are there sufficient incentives to attract the best performing secondary-school graduates. For example, students obtaining the best scores on the university entrance exam (PSU) in Chile do not tend to choose teaching as a career (Mizala, Hernández, and Makovec, 2011). In Colombia, the average score obtained by engineering students on the National Examination or entrance exams to the various university courses is 71.2, compared to 51.2 for education (Barrera-Osorio, Maldonado, and Rodríguez, 2012).
3.15
Some countries have recently experimented with initiatives to attract highly qualified professionals to the teaching profession. For example, the “Elige Educar” [Choose to Educate] program in Chile in 2009 combined a media campaign with scholarships for high-performing secondary school leavers who study education, increased teacher salaries, and opportunities for professional growth (Bassi and Covacevich, 2012). As a result, both the positive recognition of the teaching
- 14 -
profession by society and the number of outstanding students studying education has increased (see Figure 5). 3.16
There is a perception in the region that teachers’ salaries are very low compared to other professions, although the research findings are inconclusive (HernaniLimarino, 2005; Psacharopoulos, Valenzuela, and Arends, 1996). Remuneration is higher than in other professions in some countries, but similar or lower in others (Ñopo, 2008). A recent study found that the region’s teachers “are paid less in comparison” to other professions, but that there are wide variations between countries, and even within countries (Mizala and Ñopo, 2012).
3.17
Additionally, most countries lack mechanisms to distinguish and reward good teaching performance (see paragraphs 2.14h and 2.19h). Promotion within the profession and up the salary scale tends to be determined more by years of service than the results of assessments of teaching effectiveness, which suggests that the region lacks incentives for teachers to perform well in the classroom.
3.18
Many principals of schools in Latin America have no training in school management and lack the authority to hire effective teachers or dismiss ineffective ones. Few countries have introduced mechanisms for the selection or appointment of principals based on management or educational criteria. By the same token, the support mechanisms for teachers and for good school management are limited. 3. Education system
3.19
Education at all levels in most countries in the region is delivered by a mixed system comprising public and private providers. The percentage of students studying in public and private establishments varies from one country to another, and by context and level. For example, in El Salvador, just 10% of students attend private establishments, whereas in the Dominican Republic 23%, and in Argentina 24%, of students get their primary education from private schools. By contrast, in Chile 58% of students attend private establishments, and in Haiti the proportion of students attending private schools exceeds 80% (EdStats, 2012). Latin America therefore faces the challenge of ensuring that the State (national and state governments) develops effective regulatory frameworks to enable improved learning outcomes and ensure the quality of education services provided by the public or private sectors to all the children and youth of the region.
3.20
Clearly defined learning goals for each grade and education level to guide curriculum design, along with learning evaluation systems to measure progress toward the learning goals, are needed as part of these regulatory frameworks and implementation of quality assurance systems. Few countries of the region have established comprehensive education quality assurance systems. This means that countries still face the challenge of setting high goals for what students should know and be able to do at the end of each year and education cycle. And although the vast majority conducts evaluations to measure student performance, in some cases these are still neither periodic nor systematic. Moreover, the results are often not used as inputs to education policy or to measure student performance. In other
- 15 -
words, the instruments are disconnected from the curriculum, and are not used to measure whether students accomplish the required standards of learning. Some countries lack accurate and reliable data enabling them to ascertain what content or skills children and young people have obtained from their time in the education system. This situation makes it difficult for the region’s education systems to organize efforts to improve the quality of education (see paragraphs 2.19a and 2.19b). 3.21
Over the last decade the importance of raising education quality in pursuit of development has attracted civil society’s interest in several countries of the region. Nongovernmental organizations and business groups such as “Mexicanos Primero” [Mexicans First] in Mexico, “Todos pela Educação” [Everyone for Education] in Brazil, “Movimiento al 4%” [4% Movement] in the Dominican Republic, “Empresarios por la Educación” [Businesspeople for Education] in Colombia, and the Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas (PREAL) at the regional level, among others, have launched a variety of initiatives, ranging from funding research and scholarship programs at all levels for students from lower socioeconomic strata, to awareness campaigns to influence government authorities to promote reforms for quality in education (see paragraph 4.16).
3.22
In addition, Latin America has been spearheading the creation of programs to compensate students from vulnerable families and settings. Several examples exist in the region: the P-900 program and “Subvención Escolar Preferencial” [Preferential School Subsidy] (SEP) in Chile, the “Escuelas Nuevas” [New Schools] in Colombia, the “Escuelas del Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo” [Schools of the National Education Promotion Council (CONAFE)] in Mexico, the “Red de Escuelas Fe y Alegría” [Fe y Alegría Schools Network] at regional level, and others (Alfonso, Bos, Duarte, and Rondón, 2012; Reimers, 2000). For example, in the 1990s, Chile’s P-900 program was a positive discrimination program that provided resources, technical support, and teaching materials to teachers and students in 900 schools serving the most vulnerable populations. A study carried out in 2003 showed the P-900 to have a significant effect on improving scores in Chile’s national tests of learning (McEwan, 2003).
IV. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE IDB’S EXPERIENCE IN EDUCATION 4.1
Since its founding in 1959, the Bank has been strongly committed to the development of education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Initially, its operations focused on loans to support university education given that the trend in the region was towards professionalization. Later, the emphasis was put on access to basic education, giving priority to loans having an education reform component and an institutional capacity-building component. Infrastructure projects played a major part in this stage, as the goal was to expand primary and secondary education coverage.
- 16 -
4.2
Since international evidence has confirmed that the relationship between learning outcomes and economic growth is positive and much more decisive than just the number of years of schooling, beginning in 2007 the Bank began to invest significantly in education and in improving the learning outcomes of the region’s children and youth. In the Guidelines for Better Performance in Education approved in 2011 (OP-575-2), the Bank identified three priorities for its investments and analytical work: (i) improve education services for early childhood development; (ii) raise teacher quality; and (iii) facilitate the school-to-work transition (SCL/EDU, 2012). Likewise, in 2012 the Bank began using non-sovereign guaranteed lending instruments to support private providers, in order to improve quality and equity in access to education and reach a larger number of young people.
4.3
Although the Bank has set priorities, it has also learned that the client countries demand infrastructure projects and, therefore, the education portfolio continues to be strong in that area. In this regard, this SFD seeks to ensure that access expansion projects include components to raise educational quality and increase the number of activities focused on other intervention areas that improve learning opportunities, with a special focus on vulnerable children and young people.
4.4
The Bank has various tools to evaluate its experience in the different sectors. In what follows, lessons learned are summarized from: (i) reports of the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE); (ii) results of the Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM); and (iii) experience with IDB operations (PCRs) and disbursement patterns. Lastly, a brief analysis is also given of the Bank’s competitive advantages in education.
A.
Reports of the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE)10
4.5
OVE has offered valuable recommendations for application to the Bank’s work in education in order to maximize the impact of its activities and ensure the objectives set for it will be accomplished.
4.6
First of all, OVE recommends establishing specific actions to enable the objectives to be achieved (OVE, 2102). This SFD describes the lines of action and activities that the Bank will finance, aligned with the Dimensions of Success, which establish what the Bank intends to do in education and early childhood development (ECD) to accomplish the goal of improving teaching quality and learning outcomes for all children of Latin America and the Caribbean.
10
The following documents were reviewed in order to excerpt the recommendations informing this section of the SFD: “Evaluation of the Bank’s basic education strategy” (document RE-281, 2003), the Evaluation of the Strategy on Social Policy for Equity and Productivity (draft, 2012); and “Análisis de las operaciones del BID para la educación y capacitación técnica y vocacional a nivel secundario” [Analysis of IDB operations for education and technical/vocational training at secondary level] by Miguel Szekely. The country program evaluations (CPEs) and OVE’s recommendations in its evaluations of education sector loan operations were also taken into account.
- 17 -
4.7
Secondly, OVE recommends a diagnostic assessment of the causes of the problems, so that priority activities can be proposed for the Bank to address them. This SFD concludes that the main challenge facing the region in the education sector is that learning outcomes are low, unequal, inadequate, and below those of the rest of the world’s countries, and describes some of the factors affecting them. This document also incorporates the recommendations made by the study “Análisis de las operaciones del BID para la educación y capacitación técnica y vocacional a nivel secundario” [Analysis of IDB operations in education and technical/vocational training at secondary level], commissioned by OVE, in terms of supporting the countries’ efforts to teach socioemotional skills to young people (Szekely, 2012).
4.8
Lastly, according to the OVE reports, one of the main difficulties facing the education programs designed and executed by the Bank in the region is the lack of relevant information on the different education systems, which is necessary in order to set these targets and design and conduct the proposed assessments. This problem is a particular challenge in smaller countries and in the Caribbean. To address this challenge, this SFD identifies improving the quality of the information gathered as a priority area, especially in line with the activities and lines of action associated with this SFD’s first Dimension of Success (see paragraph 5.8). Work will also continue on setting specific, measurable targets in all lending or technical assistance operations, and incorporating rigorous impact evaluations into all proposed analytical and operational work.
B.
Results of the Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM)11
4.9
The Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM) for education projects and its comparison with Bank projects in other sectors shows significant improvements since 2009 on key aspects of the design of each operation, from the sector diagnostic to the approach to evaluation of the intervention (see Table 2). The education sector outperformed the Bank averages in all areas for 2012.
4.10
Significant improvements have been observed in Program Logic, in particular for the program diagnostic items, proposed solutions, and the quality of the results matrix. Moreover, currently an average of 9.7 education projects has Risk Management, representing a significant increase in the last three years. The only area in which a decline in the project average has been observed is in the Monitoring and Evaluation subsection, which went from 5 to 9.1 in 2011 and to 8.4 in 2012. Despite this decline, substantial improvements are seen in this category, with the inclusion of impact evaluations with the most rigorous methodologies and the creation of specific monitoring systems for interventions.
4.11
Additionally, 62% of the projects approved in 2012, and 100% of those approved in 2011, had impact evaluations. This represents an increase since 2009, when impact was evaluated for only half of the education projects, as shown in the following table:
11
The data presented in this Section refer only to Education Division operations.
- 18 -
Criterion Number of projects approved (DEM) Percentage of projects with impact evaluation at time of approval
2009 4
2010 10
2011 4
2012 8
50%
70%
100%
62%
4.12
In short, all education projects in 2012 were rated as highly evaluable. The Bank is therefore committed to having the lessons drawn from evaluations of both impacts and processes continue to inform national public policies and guide the Dimensions of Success, action lines, and activities that the Bank executes in the sector for the results to remain positive.
C.
Lessons learned from experience with IDB operations
4.13
The Bank has managed to position itself strategically in the region’s education sector with a significant presence in the most vulnerable countries where institutional weaknesses are greater, even though they contribute less to the portfolio amount. In the case of sovereign guaranteed loans, the Bank has balanced volume with larger projects and countries (Mexico, Argentina, and soon Brazil), as well as several operations in Central America that are above average loan size. Also noteworthy is the education sector’s expansion to new countries like Costa Rica, Peru, Barbados, and Bolivia, as well as a very significant presence in the Caribbean (Martínez, 2012).
4.14
In terms of financial execution, sovereign guaranteed education projects reflect a disbursement pattern similar to the Bank’s as a whole. Table 3 shows that 63% of projects are disbursing faster than average in comparison with countries’ disbursement history, while 21% are being disbursed in accordance with what may be considered the countries’ loan curve. Just 17% of projects are disbursing slower than the average for the countries’ disbursement curve. According to a recent study, the Bank has increased its capacity to make loans in education, and that they are being disbursed with a profile very similar to the institutional average. This study also found that the Bank is more efficient at handling and executing resources today than before the Realignment (2007), which strengthened its capacity to obtain results in the field (Álvarez, Bueso-Merriam, and Stucchi, 2012).
4.15
The lessons learned from the project completion reports (PCRs)12 in each of the areas of intervention addressed by the Bank up to approval of this SFD are summarized below.
12
The PCRs for the last five years were reviewed, to extract the Bank’s lessons learned from past experiences in education.
- 19 -
4.16
Early childhood development Ensuring universal access to preschool education and ECD programs requires reaching the most vulnerable and those living in the remotest areas, calling for interventions designed specifically for these populations. Focusing on the child as possessing rights and as the main protagonist of his or her learning process, and on the teacher as the catalyst of this learning, helps improve the preschool learning environment. Teaching of mathematics and science should start at preschool level, using child-centric teaching methods. The passage from preschool to primary school must avoid abrupt changes from a dynamic preschool to a first grade where the teacher is the main focus and the child takes on a more passive role. Teacher quality Although training does not necessarily guarantee effective project implementation, when reforms are made to the system of standards or the curriculum, training and monitoring plans should be followed to increase the likelihood of success. Efforts should be made to train school principals, education supervisors, and mid-level public administrators, in order to improve the likelihood of successful project implementation. To improve the effectiveness of training, it is necessary to ensure a timely and proper distribution of resources. Delays may result in frustration among trainers and the teachers being trained. Bilingual indigenous language training needs to be envisaged in countries where the language or culture difference can be an obstacle to student learning. School-to-work transition The secondary education curriculum and vocational education programs need to be coordinated with the skills sought by the labor market in the countries. The engagement of the private sector, through internship programs and partnerships with educational institutions, in teaching cognitive and socioemotional skills makes it easier for young people to enter the labor market and strengthens the links between education system graduates and employers. Compensatory programs to meet the needs of young people with low levels of reading and mathematics contribute to the equity of the system. Increased access for young people to information about job and training opportunities strengthens network-building.
The PCRs also yield crosscutting lessons. These include the importance of taking country project design capacity into account so as to keep outcome expectations in proportion. When the client’s capacity is limited, it is advisable to include institutional strengthening components that contribute to project design and implementation in the long run. Secondly, the PCRs detect a need to strengthen capacity in education program monitoring and evaluation from a results-based perspective. The Bank can offer clients support and training to strengthen program evaluation and stimulate the development of monitoring and evaluation instruments. Lastly, the PCRs also recommend taking into consideration political, economic, and social conditions that can hinder or delay development and implementation of Bank-financed projects in the countries. Stakeholders may become obstacles or promoters of education reform. For example, teachers’ unions, parents, communities, schools, students at all levels of education, and others may be decisive factors in the design and implementation of Bank projects in the countries. Insofar as possible, political and economic conditions in the countries concerned
- 20 -
should be factored into the activities the Bank decides to undertake, and countries should involve stakeholders in project design and implementation, so as to ensure a sense of ownership. D.
The Bank’s comparative advantages in the education sector
4.17
Because the information available on the Bank’s competitors and its own operations is limited, this analysis does not have the scientific rigor ideal for identifying the Bank’s comparative advantages in education and ECD. Nevertheless, the changes in PCRs to be implemented soon and the findings of the impact evaluations soon to be released will make it possible to update this SFD and bolster the comparative advantages presented below.
4.18
In setting the three priorities of its work in education, the Bank has developed its expertise and strengthened its capacity to undertake projects and perform research on preschool education, teachers, and the school-to-work transition (paragraph 4.2). In addition, its investment targeted both operations and knowledge generation at the early childhood, primary, and secondary levels, since the evidence shows that that is where the social return on investment in education is highest (Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 2004). However, the Bank’s current comparative advantages in the aforementioned areas do not determine its investment going forward. Indeed, as the Bank evolves along with the new challenges facing the region, the needs of its clients, and new international evidence, its comparative advantages do so as well. For example, in recent years, the rise in primary education graduation rates and the expansion in access to secondary education have increased the demand for postsecondary education. This trend is expected to continue, if the goal of increasing secondary school retention and graduation is met. Consequently, there is now room for the IDB to expand its financial and technical support for enhancing the quality and equity of education systems, including the postsecondary level.
4.19
Another comparative advantage is the Bank’s physical presence in the field, cultural proximity, and empirical knowledge of the region because they position it as a strong partner and make it an institution of choice in seeking technical and financial support in education. In fact, since the Realignment (2007), the Bank has decentralized a significant number of education specialists, who are able to respond to the needs of client countries immediately.
4.20
In addition, the Bank has set itself the goal of becoming a knowledge resource for the region, given its vantage point with respect to its client countries. In education, the Bank has developed expertise and capabilities to conduct activities and deliver technical assistance to lending countries in the areas of preschool education and ECD, teacher quality and incentives, equity, the school-to-work transition, mathematics and science teaching, and others.
4.21
Lastly, in recent years the Bank has become a strong advocate of rigorous impact evaluations of education interventions. The region’s countries have recently been turning to the IDB when they wish to rigorously evaluate their education policies and programs. These partnerships between the Bank and the region’s countries are
- 21 -
yielding empirical evidence on the impact of education policies and programs on the quality of learning, as well as reducing learning outcome gaps; this evidence is relevant not only to countries and others within the region, but also to education systems outside Latin America and the Caribbean. V.
GOAL, PRINCIPLES, DIMENSIONS OF SUCCESS AND LINES OF ACTION TO GUIDE THE BANK’S OPERATIONAL AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
5.1
This SFD proposes promoting effective teaching and learning for all children and young people in Latin America and the Caribbean as the overarching goal of the Bank’s activities in education over the next three years (Figure 2).
5.2
This goal is set on the basis of the empirical evidence on the importance of education quality in addressing the development challenge of low, unequal, and inadequate learning outcomes in Latin American and the Caribbean. To achieve this goal, five Dimensions of Success are identified based on the policies and programs put into practice by successful education systems and on the lessons learned from the Bank’s experience in the sector.
5.3
The Dimensions of Success model is built on the three priority areas identified in 2011, which are still relevant and provide medium- and long-term results (paragraph 4.2). These are: (i) early childhood development; (ii) teacher quality; and (iii) school-to-work transition. In addition, the model identifies two additional areas for attention: (i) guide the education system with high learning goals; and (ii) invest effectively in infrastructure and learning resources. Unlike the prioritiesbased approach, the Dimensions of Success model makes it possible to set a destination and guide the steps necessary to get there. Thus the dimensions make it possible to identify specific lines of action that the region’s education systems should undertake to substantially improve the learning outcomes of all children and young people. To support them in this undertaking, this SFD also identifies the analytic and operational activities—including knowledge generation—that the Bank intends to finance over the next three years.
5.4
This SFD is thus suggesting that, to achieve the goal of promoting effective teaching and learning by all children and young people in Latin America and the Caribbean, there are five Dimensions of Success that all education systems should aspire to achieve: (i) high student learning goals guide the delivery and monitoring of education services at all levels; (ii) new students come ready to learn; (iii) all students have access to effective teachers; (iv) all schools have adequate resources and are able to use them for learning; and (v) all children and young people acquire the skills necessary to be productive and contribute to society.
5.5
The work of the Bank’s project teams in education and ECD to achieve the Dimensions of Success will be governed by the following principles, which emphasize that the Bank-financed activities in the sector: (i) are based on current evidence of the impact of education policies and interventions on teaching and learning, and, where no evidence exists, lay the groundwork for the generation of
- 22 -
knowledge on how to achieve the goal and the dimensions of success identified; (ii) take global and regional experience with education reforms into account; (iii) address the context and needs of education systems at the national, regional, and local levels; (iv) are conducted in close collaboration with the principal actors in education policy and service delivery—governments, private providers, and civil society; and (v) are conducted in cross-cutting collaboration among the Bank’s divisions and units and with international institutions and private organizations, where relevant. 5.6
As mentioned in section I, this SFD is supplemented by the Bank’s programming instruments. To this end, although five Dimensions of Success have been identified to guide the Bank’s operational and analytical activities during the period covered by this SFD, it is important to emphasize that support to borrowers will respond to the specific demands of their governments and private sector actors in the case of both sovereign-guaranteed and non-sovereign guaranteed loans. Therefore, instead of proposing to support all the activities in all the countries, the Bank seeks to emphasize those that are relevant pursuant to internal demands and local and regional contexts. Sector notes, based on the priorities outlined by the SFD, will inform the country strategies, which in turn will identify specific interventions in education and ECD for each country.
5.7
This section also summarized the rationale behind each Dimension of Success based on empirical evidence and the Bank’s experience to address the challenge faced by the region. It also sets out the lines of action to which the Bank attaches priority and, lastly, identifies the specific activities on which the Bank intends to focus its efforts to support the region’s education systems.
A.
Dimension 1. High goals for student learning guide the delivery and monitoring of education services on all levels
5.8
International evidence indicates that education systems that achieve high learning outcome levels among all their students have explicitly defined high student learning goals that guide all the activities of the education system (paragraphs 2.14a and 2.19a). However, the Bank has learned that not all the countries in the region have sufficient institutional capacity to monitor and evaluate student learning, so the education systems are not always able to promote quality education or set clear learning goals that are linked to school curricula, teacher training program design, and student evaluations (paragraphs 3.20 and 4.15). In this regard, this Dimension of Success seeks to support countries in developing and implementing policies that enable their education systems to organize around improving student learning outcomes and ensuring education quality. It is proposed that specific, high goals be set for what students should know and be able to do at the end of each level of the education system and promote the creation and strengthening of country quality assurance systems. Support will also be offered for subnational, national, regional, and international evaluations of learning, to effectively measure progress on achieving the goals and to gather information that will make it possible to determine whether students master the curriculum subject-matter.
- 23 -
1. Lines of action 5.9
Three lines of action related to this Dimension of Success have been identified: (i) establish clear and useful standards for student learning that can be shared with all schools and teachers; (ii) align the curriculum with student standards to guide teaching work; and (iii) align evaluations with standards, education materials, and teacher training, and use them to monitor learning and inform teaching. 2. Activities
5.10
In the time span covered by this SFD, the Bank is expected to contribute to finance operations and analytical work in the following areas: (i) development of standards of learning and curricular frameworks aligned with them; (ii) development and strengthening of country systems for teacher and school performance evaluation, and support for country participation in international and regional tests measuring student learning outcomes. Related to this will be institutional strengthening and capacity-building work with education ministries and other institutions in the education system, particularly regarding the development and use of information from learning evaluations to inform the design of public policies and improve teaching practice; (iii) design and implementation of education quality assurance systems at all levels of education, including compensatory policies and programs for students from vulnerable circumstances; (iv) knowledge generation on education quality monitoring and assurance systems, including research into the results obtained by countries in international and national evaluations; and (v) design and implementation of policies and programs that contribute to changing existing educational and cultural paradigms—at the school level—with regard to gender roles.
B.
Dimension 2. New students enter ready to learn
5.11
As explained earlier, there is strong evidence regarding the impact of ECD on people’s education and work track record. Access to high-quality ECD and preschool programs contributes not only to ensuring that all students enter the school system ready to learn but also reduces gaps from socioeconomic impact on children’s cognitive development (paragraph 2.10). Nevertheless, this SFD has documented that access to this type of program in the region is still limited and that, as the Bank’s lessons learned recognize, it is difficult for them to reach the most vulnerable groups (paragraphs 3.11, 3.12, and 4.13). The Bank considers it essential to promote the development and implementation of preschool education and early childhood development (ECD) programs through dialogue with the countries. In this regard, this Dimension of Success seeks to reach the most disadvantaged and narrow the gaps in education opportunities and outcomes among children belonging to different socioeconomic strata, ethnic groups, regions, or parts of the country, so that they enter the education system ready to learn (see paragraph 1.6).
- 24 -
1. Lines of action 5.12
The following lines of action related to this Dimension of Success are proposed: (i) invest in expanding access to preschool education and ECD programs, especially to reach groups from different socioeconomic levels, in rural areas, and contribute to closing the gender gaps in learning outcomes; and (ii) promote comprehensive quality assurance systems for preschool education and ECD. 2. Activities
5.13
In the time span covered by this SFD, the Bank is expected to contribute to finance operations and analytical work in the following areas: (i) promotion of access to quality ECD programs; (ii) expansion and strengthening of ECD teacher training programs; (iii) promotion of comprehensive (multisector) ECD policies; (iv) evaluation of programs to stimulate demand and assure quality of preschool education; (v) development of national and regional indicators for ECD; and (vi) knowledge generation on programs and interventions that improve the quality of ECD. Special emphasis will therefore be put on teacher quality, developing skills from early childhood, and institution-strengthening to scale up successful ECD programs.
C.
Dimension 3. All students have access to effective teachers
5.14
It has been demonstrated that teacher effectiveness is the most important factor—on the school side—affecting student learning outcomes and inequity reduction (paragraph 2.13). However, improving teacher quality in the region is still a challenge (paragraph 3.13). In fact, lessons learned by the Bank highlight the importance of training, supporting, and working with teachers, school principals, and supervisors to improve teaching and learning and of incorporating stakeholders at the national, regional, and local levels to ensure the success of projects aimed at improving education quality (paragraphs 3.20 and 4.16). This Dimension of Success focuses on actions that the education systems of Latin America and the Caribbean can take to ensure all students—especially the most disadvantaged— have access to effective teachers. The Bank will thus assign priority to programs and projects that promote teacher quality and sound school leadership. 1. Lines of action
5.15
The lines of action associated with access to effective teachers are as follows: (i) transform the teaching career to attract, develop, motivate, and retain the best professionals. This will include supporting the countries in establishing teacher evaluation systems to support transformation of the teaching career; (ii) strengthen the role of school principals and their leadership in improving teacher effectiveness; (iii) develop training support structures for school networks, principals, and teachers; and (iv) generate knowledge on how to improve the effectiveness of teacher training and development and the use of individual and group incentives for teachers. Priority will also be given to research on school management and leadership.
- 25 -
2. Activities 5.16
In the time span covered by this SFD, the Bank is expected to contribute to finance operations and analytical work in the following areas: (i) investment and development of programs to attract and retain the best professionals in teaching careers; (ii) strengthening of the quality of initial teacher training and professional development systems; (iii) fostering of effective teacher assessment, feedback, and support systems to improve teaching and learning; (iv) encouragement to assign the best teachers to schools serving the most vulnerable populations; and (v) development of training programs for principals on effective school management.
D.
Dimension 4. All schools have adequate resources and are able to use them for learning
5.17
Although international evidence indicates that there is a weak empirical relationship between investment in education resources and learning outcomes, some inputs are necessary (though not sufficient) to achieve adequate conditions that promote effective teaching and student learning. Various research has undoubtedly demonstrated that how the materials and other educational resources are used is more important than the investment in the resources in and of itself. The purpose of this Dimension of Success is to guide investments in infrastructure, teaching materials, and technology towards the ultimate goal of improving the quality of learning. Support will therefore be given to education systems that invest their resources efficiently in interventions contributing to meet this goal. This Dimension of Success is aligned with the lessons learned from the Bank’s past experience, as it aims to avoid substantial investments that fail to have a significant impact on education quality (see paragraph 2.15). 1. Lines of action
5.18
The lines of action related to this Dimension of Success are as follows: (i) orient financing amounts and mechanisms toward promoting effective teaching and achieving solid student learning outcomes for all students; (ii) ensure that all students have access to schools with adequate infrastructure; (iii) leverage the potential of advances in information and communication technologies to facilitate student learning and to train and develop teachers, principals, and other education system personnel; (iv) align textbooks and teaching materials with learning targets and the curriculum; (v) invest in programs that aim to use technology as a tool for improving learning outcomes; and (vi) invest in initiatives that seek to close gender and ethnicity gaps in education, such as school dropout among young people in the Caribbean and low learning outcomes in mathematics among young people in most of the countries. 2. Activities
5.19
In the time span covered by this SFD, the Bank is expected to contribute to finance operations and analytical work in the following areas: (i) promotion of reforms in
- 26 -
education finance to help improve efficiency in resource use by the sector and at project level; (ii) investments in improving infrastructure and providing educational inputs and connectivity for preschool, primary, secondary, and postsecondary school establishments serving vulnerable populations; (iii) technical assistance for the effective use of information and communication technologies to improve teaching and learning processes; (iv) support for the production of teaching materials and textbooks, for students and teachers, that are aligned with learning targets and the curriculum; and (v) knowledge generation on the impact of various education financing mechanisms, and on the use of infrastructure and technology as inputs to improve learning outcomes. E.
Dimension 5. All children and young people gain the skills necessary to make a productive contribution to society
5.20
Although it is essential to acknowledge that the children and young people of today acquire skills both in and out of school, the ultimate goal of education systems and, therefore, of the Bank’s work in the sector, is to ensure that they all acquire the skills necessary to achieve their full potential in the world of work and in society (paragraphs 2.16 and 2.17). Moreover, the Bank’s lessons learned and the diagnostic assessment of the region offered by this SFD indicate that the curriculum of secondary schools and vocational programs are disconnected from the skills in demand in the labor market, and that the link between the world of work and the schools is broken (paragraphs 3.7 and 4.13).
5.21
This Dimension of Success has therefore been identified to address the current challenge, regionwide, that a large proportion of young people leave the education system with insufficient cognitive, socioemotional, and interpersonal skills to successfully join the labor market and that many of them neither work nor study (see paragraph 2.16). This Dimension of Success addresses the factors affecting school dropout, including: lack of interest and limited benefits of education for young people from lower socioeconomic strata (see paragraph 3.13). It draws inspiration from top-performing education systems around the world that have managed to establish stronger links between education and the demands of the labor market. In working along these lines, the Bank hopes that the learning acquired at the region’s schools will contribute to the economic growth and development of the countries (see paragraph 2.1). 1. Lines of action
5.22
Based on this approach, three main lines of action have been identified: (i) develop the cognitive, socioemotional, and interpersonal skills that equip graduates of the education system for success in postsecondary education and the world of work; and (ii) help—at the school system level—to facilitate the transition for young people to postsecondary education and the world of work, , promoting the necessary skills to continue lifelong learning.
- 27 -
2. Activities 5.23
In the time span covered by this SFD, the Bank is expected to contribute to finance operations and analytical work in the following areas: (i) support for the alignment of education systems (curriculum, school organization, education management, and institutional capacity) with the cognitive and noncognitive skills necessary to participate successfully in society; (ii) promotion of better coordination between secondary and postsecondary education and the productive sector, including support for the development of information systems to track the academic and employment progress of graduates after leaving secondary and postsecondary institutions; (iii) promotion of public-private partnerships to better connect students and graduates to the world of work, including support for information systems to profile students who access public and private institutions at various educational levels; and (iv) knowledge generation on the effectiveness and equity of various interventions on the education system side to facilitate the transition from secondary to postsecondary, and to the world of work, in particular for those groups facing greater challenges in the labor market, such as women, indigenous persons, and Afro-descendants.
Annex I Page 1 of 2
TABLES Table 1. Descriptive statistics on variables for the type of employment relationship with school Third Grade Reading Mathematics Average s.d. Average s.d. Hiring decision Open competition Internal decision External decision Type of contract Indefinite-term teacher Second job Other teaching work Other nonteaching work No other job
Sixth Grade Reading Mathematics Average s.d. Average s.d.
0.40 0.24 0.36
0.49 0.43 0.48
0.41 0.23 0.36
0.49 0.42 0.48
0.37 0.28 0.34
0.48 0.45 0.48
0.39 0.28 0.33
0.49 0.45 0.47
0.66
0.47
0.67
0.47
0.69
0.46
0.68
0.46
0.13 0.07 0.80
0.34 0.26 0.40
0.13 0.07 0.80
0.33 0.25 0.40
0.17 0.09 0.73
0.38 0.29 0.44
0.23 0.09 0.68
0.42 0.29 0.47
Note: s.d. = standard deviation. Source: The authors, based on SERCE data.
Table 2. Summary of development effectiveness matrixes (DEMs) for SCL/EDU projects
Criterion Section 3. Program logic Program diagnosis Proposed solutions (in project profile) Proposed solutions (in proposal for operation development) Results matrix quality Section 4. Evaluation and monitoring Evaluation Monitoring Section 6. Risk management Risk matrix score Mitigation matrix score Source: The authors.
SCL/EDU project average 2009
2010
7.8 2.7 1.1 1.3 2.7 5 2.3 2.7 7.5 5 2.5
8.2 2.8 1 1.7 2.8 7.4 4.2 3.2 7.8 5 2.8
Bank project average 2012 8.3 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.7 7.5 5.1 2.5 9.8 5.0 4.8
2011
2012
7.8 2.8 0.3 1.8 2.9 9.1 6.4 2.7 8.1 4.4 3.8
9.3 2.9 0.0 3.6 2.9 8.4 5.9 2.5 9.7 5.0 4.7
Annex I Page 2 of 2
Table 3. Disbursement pattern Above upper band Number %
Projects with respect to the country’s curves Below Between bands/thresholds lower band Number % Number %
Total Number
IDB
203
42%
168
35%
113
23%
484
INE ENE TSP WSA RND CCS
100 22 34 27 17 0
42% 63% 48% 40% 27% -
80 9 23 17 31 0
34% 26% 32% 25% 48% -
58 4 14 24 16 0
24% 11% 20% 35% 25% -
238 35 71 68 64 0
SCL EDU SPH LMK GDI
42 15 24 1 2
55% 63% 55% 17% 100%
21 5 12 4 0
28% 21% 27% 67% 0%
13 4 8 1 0
17% 17% 18% 17% 0%
76 24 44 6 2
IFD FMM ICS CMF CTI
59 29 15 11 4
37% 38% 31% 58% 22%
62 31 19 4 8
39% 41% 40% 21% 44%
40 16 14 4 6
25% 21% 29% 21% 33%
161 76 48 19 18
INT TIU
2 2
22% 22%
5 5
56% 56%
2 2
22% 22%
9 9
Note: Project universe is SG projects which have reached eligibility and were active as of 31 December 2012.
Source: Álvarez, Bueso-Merriam, Stucchi, 2012.
Annex II
FIGURES
Figure 1. Explanatory framework of factors affecting student learning and the interactions among them
Source: Vegas and Petrow, 2008. Figure 2. Goal and Dimensions of Success
Source: The authors, 2013
Annex III Page 1 of 3
FIGURES
Figure 1. Attendance rates by simple age and educational level
Source: Alfonso, Bos, Duarte, and Rond贸n, 2012.
Figure 2. Attendance by age and population group, early 1990s to late 2000s
Source: Alfonso, Bos, Duarte, and Rond贸n, 2012
Annex III Page 2 of 3
Figure 3. Percentage of 15-year-olds in Latin America able to infer information from a text in comparison with other countries 100 80 Percentage of 15-year-olds enrolled
60 40 20
Kyrgyzstan Panama Azerbaijan Peru Albania Indonesia Colombia Qatar Kazakhstan Mexico Brazil Argentina Thailand Uruguay Jordan Turkey Tunisia Montenegro Trinidad and Tobago Bulgaria Serbia Romania Chile Lithuania Israel Dubai (UAE) Macao-China Austria Luxembourg Russian Federation Czech Republic Croatia Slovenia Liechtenstein Portugal Italy Slovak Republic France Spain Hungary Latvia Australia Ireland New Zealand Greece Germany United Kingdom Switzerland Belgium Sweden Denmark Iceland Poland Chinese Taipei Hong Kong-China Norway United States Japan Netherlands Estonia Shanghai-China Singapore Canada Finland Korea
0
Percentage of 15-year-olds enrolled who are able to locate information to be inferred from the text
Source: Author's calculations using OECD reading, enrollment, and population estimate data in PISA 2009.
Figure 4. Difficulty encountered by employers in different countries and industries in finding skills in recent secondary school graduates
Source: Bassi, Busso, UrzĂşa, and Vargas, 2012.
Annex III Page 3 of 3
Figure 5. Percentage selected in teaching among young people with best performance on PSU university entrance exam
Source: Bassi and Covacevich, 2012.
Appendix I Page 1 of 5
BIBLIOGRAPHY Abadzi, H. (2006). Efficient Learning for the Poor: Insights from the Frontier of Cognitive Neuroscience. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Alderman, H., Behrman, J. R., Lavy, V., and Menon, R. (1997). Child Nutrition, Child Health, and School Enrollment: A Longitudinal Analysis. Policy Research Working Paper. Alfonso, M., Bos, M. S., Duarte, J., and Rondón, C. (2012). Panorama general de la educación en América Latina y el Caribe. In M. Cabrol, and M. Szekely, Educación para la Transformación (pp. 1-49). Washington, D.C.: IDB. Barro, R. J. (2001). Human Capital and Growth. American Economic Association, 91 (2), 12-17. Bassi, M., and Covacevich, C. (2012, July). ¿Cómo llevar a los mejores talentos a la sala de clases? Resultados preliminares de Elige Educar. Contribution (19). Bassi, M., Busso, M., Urzúa, S., and Vargas, J. (2012). Desconectados: Habilidades, educación y empleo en América Latina. Washington, D.C.: IDB. Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., and Gertler, G. (2006). The Effect of Pre-Primary Education on Primary School Performance. Working Paper (04/30). Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., and Manacorda, M. (2007). Giving Children a Better Start: Preschool Attendance and School-Age Profiles. London: University College. Blom, A. and C. Hobbs (2008). School and Work in the Eastern Caribbean: Does the Education System Adequately Prepare Youth for the Global Economy? Washington, DC: Banco Mundial. Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., and Weel, B. t. (2008). The Economics and Psychology of Personality and Motivation. Journal of Human Resources, 43 (4). Bos, M. S., Rondón, C., and Schwartz, M. (2012). ¿Qué tan desiguales son los aprendizajes en América Latina y el Caribe? Education Division. Washington, D.C.: IDB. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2012). The Influence of School Administrators on Teacher Retention Decisions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (34), 435-464. Bruns, B., Evans, D., and Luque, J. (2012). Achieving World Class Education in Brazil: The Next Agenda. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Bruns, B., Filmer, D., and Patrinos, H. A. (2011). Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Accountability Reforms. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Cabrol, M., and Szekely, M. (2012). Introduction: ¿Cómo lograr una educación para la transformación? In M. Cabrol, and M. Szekely, Educación para la Transformación (pp. v-xxvii). Washington, D.C.: IDB. Caribbean Examinations Council (CxC). (2010). Annual Report. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from Caribbean Examinations Council: http://www.cxc.org/media-centre/annualreports
Appendix I Page 2 of 5
Carneiro, P., and Heckman, J. (2003). Human Capital Policy. In J. Heckman, and A. Krueger, Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies? Cambridge, Massachussetts: MIT Press. Casassus, J., Cusato, J., Froemel, J. E., and Palafox, J. C. (2000). First International Comparative Study of Language, Mathematics, and Associated Factors for Students in the Third and Fourth Years of Primary School. Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of Quality in Education. Santiago de Chile: UNESCO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. ECLAC and CELADE. (2010). Pobreza infantil en América Latina y el Caribe. ECLAC, CELADE and UNICEF. ECLAC and UNFPA. (2012). Invertir en juventud: Informe regional de población en América Latina y el Caribe 2011. United Nations. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., and Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement? NBER Working Papers (12828), 1-54. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education / National Center of Education Statistics. Cristia, J., Ibarrán, P., Cueto, S., & Severín, E. (2012, October). Tecnología y desarrollo en la niñez: Evidencia de una laptop por niño. IBD working paper (IDB-WP-304). Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L., and Masterov, D. V. (2006). Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation. In Hanushek, E. and Welch, F. Handbook of the Economics of Education (pp. 697-812). Amsterdam: North Holland. Duarte, J., Bos, M. S., and Moreno, M. (2012). In Cabrol, M. and Szekely, M. Educación para la transformación (pp. 133-166). Washington, D.C.: IDB. Fernandes, R. (2009/2010). EM: ¿Cómo aumentar el atractivo y evitar la deserción? Instituto Unibanco. Flórez, C. E., and Soto, V. E. (2007). La fecundidad y el acceso a los servicios de salud reproductiva. CEDE Document (16). Bogotá: Centro de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo Económico. Fundación Getulio Vargas. (2009). Motivos de deserción escolar. Retrieved 18 January 2013 from http://www.cps.fgv.br/cps/tpemotivos/ Galiani, S., Gertler, P., and Schargrodsky, E. (2008). School Decentralization: Helping the Good Get Better, But Leaving the Poor Behind. Journal of Public Economics, 92 (10-11), 2106–2120. Ganimian, A., and Solano, A. (2011). ¿Están al nivel? ¿Cómo se desempeñaron América Latina y el Caribe en el Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de Alumnos del 2009 (PISA)? Washington, D.C.: PREAL. Gertler, P., Zanolini, A., Pinto, R., Heckman, J., Walker, S., Vermeersch, C., et al. (2013). Labor Market Returns to Early Childhood Stimulation: a 20-Year Follow-up to the Jamaica Study. Working Paper Series(0267). Gremaud, A. (2010). Una relación entre el Abandono Escolar en EM y el desempeño en EF en Brasil. Brazil: Instituto Unibanco.
Appendix I Page 3 of 5
Hanushek, E. A., and Rivkin, S. G. (2012). The Distribution of Teacher Quality and the Implications of Teacher Policy. Annual Review of Economics, 131-157. Hanushek, E. A., Lavy, V., and Hitomi, K. (2006). Do Students Care about School Quality? Determinants of School Dropout Behaviour in Developing Countries. NBER Working Papers (12737), 69-105. Hanushek, E. (2011). The Economic Value of Higher Teacher Quality. The Economics of Education Review, 466-479. Hanushek, E. (2011, Summer). Valuing Teachers. Education Next, pp. 41-45. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children. Science, 312, 1900-1902. Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., and Urzúa, S. (2006). The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24 (3), 411-482. Hernani-Limarino, W. (2005). Are Teachers Well Paid in Latin America and the Caribbean? In E. Vegas, Incentives to Improve Teaching: Lessons from Latin America. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. IDB. (2009). Encuestas Hogares Homogeneizadas. Washington, D.C.: IDB. International Finance Corporation (IFC). (2013). IFC Jobs Study: Evaluación de aportes del sector privado. Washington, D.C.: IFC. Incrementar el aprendizaje estudiantil en América Latina 2008. Washington, D.C.: World Bank and Mayol Ediciones. Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-of-field Teaching, Educational Inequality, and the Organization of Schools: An Exploratory Analysis. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Kirsch, I., De Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., and Monseur, C. (2000). Reading for Change: Performance and Engagement Accross Countries-Publications 2000. Paris: OECD. Lavy, V. (2005, Spring). Using Performance-based Pay to Improve the Quality of Teachers. Future of Children, 17 (1), pp. 87-109. Martínez, E. (2012). Informe de monitoreo de la cartera de educación. Washington, D.C.: IDB. Maxwell, N. L. (2007). Smoothing the Transition from School to Work: Building Job Skills for a Local Labor Market. In D. Neumark, Improving School-to-Work Transitions. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. McEwan, P. J., Urquiola, M., and Chay, K. Y. (2003). The Central Role of Noise in Evaluating Interventions That Use Test Scores to Rank Schools. NBER Working Paper Series (10118). Ministry of Education of Brazil and IDB. (2010). Educación infantil en Brasil: Evaluación cuantitativa y cualitativa. MEC and IDB. Mizala, A., and Ñopo, H. (2012). Salarios de los maestros en América Latina. In M. Cabrol, and M. Szekely, Educación para la transformación (pp. 167-204). Washington, D.C.: IDB.
Appendix I Page 4 of 5
Mizala, A., and Romaguera, P. (2005). Teachers’ Salary Structure and Incentives in Chile. In E. Vegas, Incentives to Improve Teaching: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 103-150). Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Mizala, A., Hernández, T., and Makovec, M. (2011). Determinantes de la elección y deserción en la carrera pedagogía. Santiago de Chile: Fondo Investigación y Desarrollo, Ministry of Education, Chile. Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., and Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s Most Improved Systems Keep Getting Better? McKinsey & Company. Nikolaou, D. (2012, Octubre). Direct and Indirect Effects of the Non-cognitive skills on the gender gap. Ohio State University. Ñopo, H. (2008). Matching as a Tool to Decompose Wage Gap. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90 (2), 290-299. OECD. (2009). Retrieved February 4, 2012, from PISA 2009 Results: Learning Trends. Changes in Student Performance since 2000. OECD. (2010). Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education. Lessons from PISA for the United States. Retrieved 4 February 2013 from OECD: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en OVE. (2012). Background Paper: Assessment of Social Sector Strategy for Equity and Productivity (draft). Washington, D.C.: Office of Evaluation and Oversight, IDB. Paxson, C., and Schady, N. (2007). Cognitive Development among Young Children in Ecuador: The Roles of Wealth, Health and Parenting. The Journal of Human Resources, 42 (1), 49-84. Paxson, C., and Schady, N. (2007). Does Money Matter? The Effects of Cash Transfers on Child Health and Development in Rural Ecuador. World Bank research policy papers (WPS4226). PREAL. (2013). A Report Card on Education in Latin America. Washington, D.C.: Unpublished work. Pritchett, L. (2001). Where Has All the Education Gone? The World Bank Economic Review, 15 (3), 367-391. Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H. (2004, Octubre). Returns to Investment in Education: a further update. Education Economics, 12(2), 111-134. Psacharopoulos, G., Valenzuela, J., and Arends, G. (1996). Teacher Salaries in Latin America: A Review. Economics of Education Review, 15 (4), 401-406. Reimers, F. (2000). Educational Opportunity and Policy in Latin America. In F. Reimers, Unequal Schools, Unequal Chances. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., and Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement. Econometrica, 73 (2), 417-458. Rockoff, J. E. (2008, March). Does Mentoring Reduce Turnover and Improve Skills of New Employees? Evidence from Teachers in New York City. NBER Working Paper Series (13868).
Appendix I Page 5 of 5
Schady, N. (2012). El desarrollo infantil temprano en América Latina y el Caribe: Acceso, resultados y evidencia longitudinal de Ecuador. In Cabrol, M., and Szekely, M. Educación para la Transformación (pp. 53-92). Washington, D.C.: IDB. Severin, E., and Capota, C. (2012). Enseñar con tecnología. In M. Cabrol, and M. Szekely, Educación para la Transformación (pp. 245-270). Washington, D.C.: IDB. Szekely, M. (2012). Analysis of IDB Operations for Technical and Vocational Education and Training at the Secondary Level. Mexico. IDB. UNESCO (2004). Global Monitoring Report. Education for All: The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean (OREALC/UNESCO) and Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education (LLECE). 2010. SERCE. Los aprendizajes de los estudiantes de America Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile: OREALC and LLECE. Vegas, E. et. al. (2012). SABER: Systems Approach for Better Education Results. Human Development Network. World Bank. Vegas, E., and Petrow, J. (2008). Incrementar el aprendizaje estudiantil en América Latina. Washington, D.C.: World Bank and Mayol Ediciones. Vegas, E., and Paglayan, A. S. (2010). Diseño de una nueva organización institucional para el aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación: Lecciones para la República de Chile de experiencias internacionales y locales. Buenos Aires: World Bank. Vegas, E., and Santibáñez, L. (2010). La promesa del desarrollo en la primera infancia en América Latina y el Caribe. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Vegas, E., Urquiola, M., and Cerdán-Infantes, P. (2006). Teacher Assignment, Mobility and Their Impact on Equity and Quality of Education in Uruguay. Background paper prepared for this report. Verdisco, A., and Ñopo, H. (2012). Intervenciones tempranas y el reto de los recursos humanos. In Cabrol, M., and Szekely, M. Educación para la transformación (pp. 93-131). Washington, D.C.: IDB. Woessmann, L. (2003). Schooling Resources, Educational Institutions and Student Performance: The International Evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65 (2), 117-170. Woessmann, L. (2004). The Effect of Heterogeneity of Central Exams: Evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat and PISA. Working paper, Labor Markets, 4 (1330). World Bank. (2004). Pobreza en Guatemala. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. “What matters most in teacher policies? A framework for building a more effective teaching profession.” SABER: Systems Approach for Better Education Results, Human Development Department. Washington, DC: World Bank World Bank. (2004). World Development Report: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.