The evaluation of education in Chile by Jorge Inzunza

The Evaluation of Education in Chile: Two Opposing Approaches Jorge Inzunza Higueras1

Summary The case of Chile seems to be one of those most affected by the bursting in of neoliberalism worldwide. Due to the imposition by force, the Chilean education model lived through a series of transformations, which lead to a betrayal of its republican history, as seen in the privatization of education services and the way the right to education is exercised. Within this framework, the evaluation of learning performance has become one of the main mechanisms of decision-making on the education marketplace in Chile. However, reactions from society against this model are increasing, which is also why, in 2006, secondary students reached the very roots of the neoliberal education system. Moreover, the teachers’ union has been able to take position against policies concerning the evaluation of teachers and put the focus on professional development and the teaching career. By and large, Chile shows two opposing approaches regarding the construction of public policies: one in tune with the neoliberal, dominant and totalitarian model, and a marginalized one, initiated by our teachers.

The impacts of the dictatorship The behaviour of the Chilean state in the past 19 years is rooted in the destructive policies of the military dictatorship since 1973. Far-reaching privatizations, made possible by the repeated violation of human rights, lead to a complete or partial entering of profit-oriented companies from the private sector. The most sensible areas in terms of the state retreating from its historical role of protectionism were social protection, health care and education. The political constitution from 1980 established a subsidiary role for the state and also brought in a strong neoliberal influence. It allowed the state to withdraw from the social sectors mentioned within only a few years and also initiated a process of dispersion, favouring regions, provinces and municipalities. The so-called “grand” education reform, driven by the rising technocracy, was based on article 19 of the political constitution, which established the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of education. This freedom was mainly understood as the schools’ freedom of property and above all the right to education, as well as defending parents’ right of choice. Under the dictatorship’s education policies, the administration was handed over from schools to municipal governments; there were massive openings of private schools and a new finance system introduced subsidies according to student demand. That means different amounts of money were given to schools, depending on the average number of students (taking up the theoretical approach of “vouchers” by Milton Friedman). 1

Psychologist, Master in Social and Human Sciences, Program coordinator Programa Equipo de Psicología y Educación (EPE), Faculty of Social Sciences – University of Chile, jinzunzah@gmail.com

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

Then, on March 10, 1990, one day before the political power was passed from Augusto Pinochet to the democratically elected president Patricio Aylwin, a new Act was passed. The Ley No. 18.962 Orgánica Constitucional de Enseñanza LOCE consolidated the right to profit of educational institutions and to select their students. Since then, in the course of the past 19 years, the Concertación2 in the Chilean government has not brought up the sufficient majority to carry out structural changes and is therefore subject to embedded laws which were inherited from the dictatorship and to the judgement of the over represented right wing in parliament.3 This is why the education policies launched since the 1990s, which followed the idea of a reform that favours quality and equity and complies with the targets of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, have not moved away from the neoliberal guidelines imposed by this Act. One positive aspect of these new governments has been the rise in spending on education, although it still remains below the level of 1973. Even though the expenditure for education in Chile is at around 7%, only about 3,5% come from the state while the rest is paid for by families and to private schools. No more than about 1,5% of these 7% are given to public institutions, which demystifies the “equal treatment” definition made by conservatives to justify state spending on private education, disregarding the investment made by families. The state’s education policy, which could be called “refreshing”, having had to confront the consequences of sharp violations of many rights during the dictatorship, then limited itself to setting up programs that focused on the most vulnerable of the education population and took up the approach of a positive discrimination. This sometimes entailed marketplace characteristics and competitiveness between schools in order to obtain funding for projects, paradoxically harming particularly those schools in the worst conditions in their dealing with the competitive situation. There were no comprehensive conceptual discussions on the final aim of education and neither were universal political guidelines established. This tendency was reinforced by each of the governments of the Concertación and did not raise any major debates until the year 2006 when massive protest of secondary students spread all across the country.

The Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia (Coalition of Parties for Democracy) is a coalition of centre-left political parties and has been governing since 1990. Its members are the following political parties: Christian Democrat Party (DC), Party for Democracy (PPD), Socialist Party (PS) and the Social Democrat Radical Party (PRSD). 3 This is due to the Binomial System, which ensures the pre-eminence of two political blocks in parliament, at the same time excluding other sectors, which do not approve of the coalitions’ ideology.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

The alienation of evaluation: the SIMCE Background Standardized evaluation in Chile started in the 1960s but it was not until 1981 that the first evaluation instrument to strengthen decentralized education was installed. The performance evaluation test PER (Prueba de Evaluación de Rendimiento) was in force between 1982 and 1984 and transferred the initiative of education improvement to colleges and schools. It provided detailed information on student performance, focusing on Spanish language, mathematics, social sciences and natural sciences. Since then, two different approaches emerged, which became even more extreme in the 1990s with the introduction of the quality education evaluation system SIMCE (Sistema de Medición de la Calidad de la Educación) which replaced the PER: one approach represented an evaluation for feedback on the teaching-learning processes of teachers and the other approach was an evaluation to inform parents about the performance of schools so that they could make a good choice on the “education marketplace”. After the painful transfer of public schools to the municipal governments in 1988, the SIMCE was introduced, following the same goals as the PER but other aspects were added. These were, for instance, recognition of educational work based on opinion polls carried out among parents, teachers and students and efficiency, based on graduation rates and the duration of studies. Erika Himmel points out: “… SIMCE defined itself as a system of quality evaluation. Therefore, apart from the original idea of evaluating learning successes, aspects of efficiency were added. However, the main component until today has been to achieve the academic goals”. She points out that every individual has to analyze these aspects in order to monitor their progress in accordance with their particular education goals (1992:284). The explicit objectives of the SIMCE are the following: a) On the central level of the Chile Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), the SIMCE is supposed to facilitate carrying out orientation and normative efforts in the education system and direct technical and economic support to sectors which need it most. b) On the regional, provincial and local level, the SIMCE focuses on facilitating and providing orientation for supervisory work, technical and economic support within the framework of educational institutions. c) On the level of schools, the SIMCE wants to set up a diagnosis concerning needs and problems in order to carry out an action plan which will become a reality as part of the school’s education project. Tools You could argue that the SIMCE does not clearly state what it understands by quality education but only defines certain indicators of which many are emotional ones.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

However, the first indicator, academic performance, is the one that is most valued and promoted: 1. Achieving academic goals: refers to an evaluation based on criteria and evaluating the level of the students’ performance. It wants to find out about the knowledge they have in the areas that are considered fundamental for their education. 2. Acceptance of educational work: investigates the opinion of teachers, students and other persons involved on the way the education process is implemented. 3. Personal development: brings in data of autonomy, self-assertion, security, selfconfidence as well as physical, social, family and school aspects. 4. Learning strategies: seeks to find out about the way students learn. 5. School environment: intends to get to know the characteristics of the classroom atmosphere which favour or complicate the development of a student’s creative abilities. 6. Attitude towards the environment: examines the students’ relationship towards their natural and artificial environment. Today, the SIMCE is applied annually in the first four years of primary education and every two years for 8th and 10th grade. Tests are carried out in: language and communication, mathematical education and environmental studies for the first four years of primary education4; language and communication, mathematical education and social studies for 8th grade; and language and communication, mathematical education, history, social sciences and natural sciences for the secondary level.

Results The results of the SIMCE have lead to many debates and for many years they focused on the unfortunate comparison of scores from public schools, private subsidized schools and private non-subsidized schools. It was not until the year 2003, i.e. 15 years after the introduction of the test, that results allowed a more complex evaluation owing to the introduction of variables such as gender, the socio-economic level or profits. Despite this improvement, the ideology of technocracy and privatization in combination with mass media have succeeded in spreading the public opinion that private is better than public. Figures point to the progress coming to a “standstill”, which has lead to the questioning of education policies and the efficiency of state action. The following table shows the results of the SIMCE between 2004 and 2007 in four evaluated regions and for 4th and 8th grade:

In Chile there are eight years of primary education and four years of secondary education. According to an Act passed in 2003 by the government of Ricardo Lagos all twelve grades are compulsory.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

Results of the SIMCE between 2004 and 2007 for 4th and 8th grade Year and Language Mathematics Environmental Social studies grade studies 2007- 4th 254 246 250 2007- 8th 253 256 250 2006- 4th 253 248 2004- 8th 251 253 251

Nature studies

258 256

Source: SIMCE Report 2007, Mineduc.

These categories do not take into account the contextual differences which lead to a high and increasing segregation in education. In fact, school rankings published in the press year after year have resulted in a stigmatization of public schools, resulting in families starting to send their children to private schools. These rankings, which were basically the only publication made by the press until 2003, persistently showed the existing gap between the three different school types, favouring the subsidized and nonsubsidized private schools. The following table shows the score reached by students of 4th grade in primary education in the 2007 test:

Average score 4th grade in 2007, according to socio-economic group and dependence

GSE Low Medium low Medium Medium high High Average

Mun 239 236

Language Psub PPag 230 0 240 0

Mun 224 225

Mathematics Psub PPag 210 0 229 0

Mun 228 230

Natural sciences Psub PPag 218 0 234 0

248 274

258 278

0 0

240 269

250 273

0 0

244 270

255 276

0 0

0 241

292 261

300 299

0 231

291 254

299 298

0 235

292 258

297 296

Source: SIMCE Report 2007, Mineduc, page 35 GSE: Socio-economic group Mun: public schools; Psub: private schools subsidized by the government; PPag: private, fee-paying schools

If you compare a subsidized school with a high socio-economic level to a public school with a low socio-economic level you can see a 61 points difference in the language test, 75 in mathematics and 69 in natural sciences. Despite this fact, and contrary to neoliberal interpretations, which only take into account the total average, these schools do not perform a lot worse than subsidized schools with students from the same socio-economic group. In fact, they even exceed private schools when it comes to the low socio-economic level.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

These SIMCE test results show a highly selective school system where schools have introduced student selection criteria to improve their performance. This downfall of the Chilean education system has reached its high since the SIMCE has become the central instrument to monitor schools, at the same time establishing incentives for “good performance” (score improvement) without taking into account the right to education being violated by the respective schools. On the other hand, the establishment of compulsory secondary education in 2003 resulted in public secondary schools receiving students from outside the system, increasing the performance differences in standardized tests even more. This is why, in 2006, the difference between municipal secondary schools with many students from a low socio-economic level and those with many students from a higher socio-economic level amounted to 79 points in language and communication and to 90 points in mathematics. As opposed to primary education, public secondary schools reach the same or higher scores in more socio-economic groups than private schools (subsidized or non-subsidized). The following table shows the SIMCE results from the year 2006 for 10th grade, divided into the different socio-economic groups: SIMCE average for 10th grade in 2006 according to socio-economic group and dependence Socio-economic group

Spanish language

Mun PSub Low 228 230 Medium low 237 (+) 245 Medium (+) 274 264 Medium high (+) 312 287 High Average 242 257 (+) Significant rise on 2003 levels Source: Mineduc, Results SIMCE 2006.

Mathematics PPag 290 307 305

Mun 218 228 (+) 277 (+) 335 236

PSub 219 (+) 240 263 298 256

PPag 302 328 325

Nevertheless, these figures should be looked at carefully. There have been advances in Latin American research tradition owing to multilevel studies to explain the differences in results between rich and poor schools. These studies clearly showed that when looking at the out-of-school factors (socio-economic level of families, educational background of parents, economic investment, expectations from the school career, etc.), public schools performed equally or better than private schools (Redondo, Descouvieres, Rojas 2004). Teacher evaluation and union participation Background Teacher evaluation is one of the most significant processes when setting up a public policy which that wants to give a leading role to a nongovernmental sector, i.e.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

teachers’ unions, not only when it comes to building a policy but also when it comes to the several evaluations and corrections. The initiative for the instalment of a teacher evaluation system derived from the teachers’ union itself. In 1997, the National Education Congress, organized by the teachers’ union Colegio de Profesores, took place in Santiago de Chile. They concluded that “the state has to develop an evaluation system which, based on the criteria of pedagogy, human development, society and ethics, recognizes the different socioeconomic realities existing in our country.” (Assael 1998:38). By doing so they tried to comply with the Teachers Statute from 1991, which stated in article 18 that “education professionals are personally responsible for their performance. By this virtue they shall undergo processes of evaluation of their work and will be given information on results of these evaluations”. The fact that article 18 was not applied until then was a result of the punitive character of the regulations on which it was based. Another reason was the resistance shown by large parts of the teachers (Assaél y Avalos 2007) as well as the missing perspectives for a teaching career. In the wake of the National Education Congress, the Colegio de Profesores, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and the Chilean Association of Municipalities (representatives of the public school administrations) aimed at creating a teacher evaluation system of a tripartite character, which resulted to be difficult and challenging for all parties. The proposal of the Colegio de Profesores involved setting up technical study commissions so as to defend a comprehensive evaluation, taking into account the different realities of teachers in Chile and seeking professional development. This approach opposed technocratic sectors, which proposed control mechanisms connected to results of standardized testing of students. In the year 2000, the following criteria were proposed for the teachers’ performance evaluation EDD (Evaluación de Desempeño Docente): -

Promotion of professional development by setting incentives or providing improvement plans, while focusing on the learning process gained from the evaluation5. Development as a participative and transparent process for all players in the system, in order to change school culture and make the school system more democratic.

The EDD system led to a positive mobilization of an important share of the teachers’ union, however, their opinions over accepting this mechanism remained divided. The following chart shows the degree of participation Chilean teachers had in the EDD: 5

For the teachers’ federation, the learning process is an essential aspect of evaluation because it constitutes a real chance of launching a process of professional development for teachers, establishing supportive mechanisms for them to improve. This is contrary to the perspectives of the political right wing, which tries to use the EED as a means of dismissing teachers.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

National Education Congress Colegio de Profesores 2007

Technical Board Tripartite Commission Executive Board CPEIP

Internet platform www.docentemas.cl

Participation Mechanisms Union National Reflection Day 2001 National Consultation 2002 National Extraordinary Assembly

2003 Focal Groups 2005 Email address evaldocentecolegiodeprofesores.cl

2005-2008

In the course of the three following years, arduous work of several commissions set up a final teacher evaluation system which took into consideration the following elements: a) the learning process gained from evaluation, b) the integration of an at par evaluator c) setting up a joint framework for performance standards called Marco para la Buena Enseñanza, d) tripartite monitoring and evaluation of the EDD.

Tools The EDD system consists of four tools, which define the overall evaluation category for each teacher and every single tool influences the final allocation of points. -

Self-evaluation guidelines (10%): This is a guide of questions which seeks to generate a reflection and evaluation from the teachers themselves about their performance, in accordance with the criteria and descriptions of the framework Marco para la Buena Enseñanza, requesting them to qualify themselves as Unsatisfactory, Basic, Competent or Outstanding. Portfolio (60%): This is the entire material collected by the teacher to present their classroom work. There are two types of evidence: a) a teaching unit, which has to combine three aspects: implementation of a teaching unit, evaluation of the

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

teaching unit and reflection on the teaching performance; and b) film material of a class, shot by an accredited cameraman Interview with an at par evaluator (20%): This revision of the teaching practice and the teacher’s working environment is carried out through a structured interview with an evaluator appointed by the Ministry of Education. It is based on the scope and criteria of the framework Marco para la Buena Enseñanza. The evaluator must be an employee of the public sector, may not work for the same educational institution, may not be a relative of the person interviewed, must have more than five years of experience and teach the same school subjects as the interviewee. The evaluating person will classify the teacher’s answers as Unsatisfactory, Basic, Competent or Outstanding. Third party reference report (10%): This report is written by someone from a higher hierarchy than the evaluated teacher (Director or Head of the Technical Pedagogy Board). It consists of questions concerning the teacher’s performance; the evaluation categories are the ones mentioned above.

The dimensions of evaluation were published in a Manual for Good Teaching (Manual para la Buena Ensañanza), containing four essential factors of teacher performance: a) Preparation of classes: refers to the field of the curriculum and disciplinary content; knowledge of their students’ capabilities and experience; the field of disciplinary teaching; coherent organization of objectives and contents, in accordance with the students’ characteristics; and coherent assessment strategies that are connected to the objectives. b) Creating a favourable climate for learning: promote an atmosphere of acceptance, equity, confidence, solidarity and respect; confidence in their students’ learning abilities and development; consistency concerning the norms of co-existence in the classroom; providing a work environment, resources and space for learning. c) Teaching methods which educate all students: expressed by the systematic analysis of the teacher’s work; building relationships and setting up professional teams; orientation of their students; managing of information about their profession, education system and valid policies. d) Professional responsibilities: takes into account the clear and precise presentation of learning objectives; coherence, significance and difficulty of teaching strategies for students; conceptual level of difficulty and comprehensive conveyance of contents; optimizing teaching time; promoting and developing thoughts: evaluation and monitoring of the students’ comprehension and learning (CPEIP 2006).

Results The EDD implementation was done step by step in the last five years, including only those teachers working in the public system and in cooperation with Colegio de Profesores. The test results until 2007 have been used for various interpretations. On the

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

one hand, the political sector tends to see the critical situation of teacher performance, with one third of all teachers being classified as unsatisfactory or basic and only 8% considered outstanding. On the other hand, sectors linked to the teachers’ associations point out that half of the teachers are found in the category “competent”, leaving only 2 to 3% of teachers who have serious difficulties. The following table shows the results of five years of the system’s application: Results of Teacher Evaluation between 2003 and 2007 Category Unsatisfactory Basic Competent Outstanding Teachers Evaluated

2003 3,8% 30,2% 56,6% 9,4% 3.740

2004 3,8% 37,4% 50,8% 8,0% 1.721

2005 3,8% 37,3% 52,3% 6,6% 10.695

2006 2,9% 31,6% 58,8% 6,8% 14.207

2007 2% 33,2% 56,5% 8,3% 10.415

The teachers’ union has used these figures to make clear that, contrary to what neoliberal sectors claim, teachers are not the only ones responsible for problems related to quality and equity. Within this framework they protest against the use of the results by the media, which tends to draw a disastrous picture. They also speak out against the absence of public statements, which should recognize the existence of severe inequalities in the school system, and in particular as far as working conditions in large parts of the public school system are concerned. Comparing the results obtained in 2007 with the first teacher evaluation of 2003, 57,9% of those classified as “competent” maintained or improved their performance and 76,5% of those classified as “outstanding” maintained on this level. Moreover, 43,3% of teachers evaluated as “basic” in 2003 improved to the categories “competent” or “outstanding” in the new evaluation. Furthermore, teachers of first grade, which were evaluated for the second time, obtained better results than those tested for the first time. 56,2% of the teachers evaluated in 2003 were found in the upper categories of “outstanding” or “competent” in 2007, which is 9% above the results obtained by teachers who were evaluated for the first time in 2007.

Evaluations that are useful for education What causes unease today in Chile about standardized tests is the total absence of these evaluations in daily school life. Even schools that have shown wide participation in designing the EDD, now reject it due to the lack of support and time for the teachers’ preparation of their evaluations. Schools project all their efforts on good scores in the evaluations. The aims of quality education for everyone are tightened due to the pressure to achieve good results for the mathematics and language exams. The extension of the school day in 1996, which

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

was originally intended to leave students more space for integral learning, meant that there were more training sessions get prepared for the evaluation tests. As a consequence, the curriculum has been narrowed, which was also part of the criticism that lead to the secondary student movement in 2006, championing an integral education where juvenile interest is integrated. While, for students, standardized tests mean limitations for their learning and school experience in general, for teachers they result in a deterioration of working conditions. The majority of teachers of all subjects need to prepare their students for these exams and pressurize them to reach a certain score. The signal they receive from their school boards is that measuring the scores is important and that rewards are given on the grounds of the compliance with this requirement. This logic can also be found in the recent report of SIMCE results, which contradicts the agreements signed with the Colegio de Profesores and moreover relates the academic SIMCE results to teacher evaluation, finding an apparently positive connection. The complicated coordination of bad working conditions, standardized evaluation and the economic incentives tied to it, selection in the private system (discrimination of students), student subsidization (overcrowded classrooms), marketplace and privatization make the Chilean education system a loose cannon. The 2006 movements put the serious structural deficits up for debate and the OECD even classified the education system as deliberately divided into social classes. The promise of quality and equity for everyone turned out to be a simple illusion, paralysed by legislative and ministerial measures aiming at the perfection of market ideology until today. In this respect, advances towards making the right to free, quality, secular and life-long education a reality are rare. Teacher evaluation, as a logic of design, installation and monitoring of a public policy is like a drop of water in the desert. It has given more importance to teachers, which is in contradiction to the authoritarian, market-related and debilitating character (the levels of depression, stress and absence of teachers are alarming) of the other education policies. The tests also allowed for space for a pedagogical reflection in some schools’ daily routines, which was supported by teachers. Movements trying to boycott the EDD have criticized the lack of prerequisites for its implementation, the most important being the establishing of an admission, promotion and retirement system for teachers; i.e. a career. This tension within the union remains present until today. Studying the characteristics that have to be kept in mind concerning evaluating education, here are some criteria of the Chilean experience, some of which are fundamental ones: -

Contextualization: The evaluation refers to a particular location, which is why it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the region, education needs, sociodemographic particularities, economic factors, etc. The key to a quality interpretation of results can be found in the context. This means that school rankings become meaningless.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

Opening up dimensions of evaluation: Standardized tests mirror no more than one fractional piece of information about school reality. The education experience is complex and deserves an appropriate assessment, based on an agreement between communities and administrative systems and within the framework of the right to education.

Quality assessment: What is just as important as knowing about how often a phenomenon occurs, is knowing about the how, where, when and why. In the sector of education evaluation, important economic resources are used on the development on standardized tests but no information is given about the variables of the process that lead to a particular result. In this respect, studying quality indicators obviously is an advantage and national education systems should promote these kinds of studies as well in order to interpret the results of quantitative tests.

Participation of key players in education: The excessive technification of education policy has marginalized all those who have direct experience and therefore could provide significant support as well as creative and adequate responses to the education problems.

State commitment: The state has to provide a basis to facilitate a comprehensive evaluation process of the complex situation and teachers must be given a leading role in it. This commitment has to also be expressed by setting up support (for students and teachers) with the aim of permanent and sustainable improvements.

Teacher professionalism: From the neoliberal point of view, teachers are perceived as plain technicians who apply formulas designed by a central institution. The teachers’ union has to provide all its expertise in the field of education and, in cooperation with education communities, promote evaluation proposals and enrichment for the education experience.

It is also indispensable for the evaluation to be useful for the person tested because otherwise it will be no more than a strange and useless construct. Teachers obviously have to see an educational use in it, which enables them to see themselves and take on responsibility for the future of their teaching career and the learning processes of their students. This dimension of teacher evaluation is possibly an act of humility that should be carried out by the education authorities that administer our education system.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

Bibliography Assaél, Jenny (1998): Síntesis Congreso Nacional de Educación (1ª Parte), en Revista Docencia Nº5, Santiago, Chile. Assaél, Jenny; Avalos, Beatrice (2007): Moving from resistance to agreement: The case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation (De la Resistencia al Acuerdo: El Establecimiento de un Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño Docente en Chile), International Journal of Educational Research Volume 45, Issues 4-5, 2006, Education Reform and the Global Regulation of Teachers' Education, Development and Work: A Cross-Cultural Análisis, Estados Unidos, Páginas 254-266. Assaél, Jenny; Inzunza, Jorge (2007): Informe Las luchas por el Derecho a la Educación. El caso del Colegio de Profesores de Chile, CLACSO. Barrios, Priscila; Brito, Carlos; Contardo, Claudia (2006): ¿Qué refleja el actual sistema de evaluación docente, como política educativa, de la democracia chilena?, Investigación documental, Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo Educacional, Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chile. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2005): Propuestas de modificaciones al sistema nacional de evaluación de desempeño docente. Directorio Nacional Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. Comisión Bipartita (Colegio de Profesores y MINEDUC) (2000): Criterios fundantes de un sistema de evaluación de los profesionales de la educación, en Revista Docencia Nº 10, Santiago, Chile. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2001): Declaración Pública, Directorio Nacional. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2003): Documento borrador de trabajo. Evaluación del Desempaño Profesional Docente, Directorio Nacional. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2003): Cuenta Presidente Nacional Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G., Asamblea Nacional Ordinaria del 25 de julio de 2003. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2004): Cuenta Presidente Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G., Asamblea Programática del 25 y 26 de marzo de 2004. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2004): Cuenta Presidente Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G., Asamblea Nacional Ordinaria del 13 de agosto de 2004. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2004): Circular informativa, Directorio Nacional, 14 de septiembre de 2004. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2005): Propuestas de modificaciones al sistema de Evaluación de Desempeño Docente, Directorio Nacional. . Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2006): Informe de seguimiento al proceso de evaluación docente. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2006): Cambios a los instrumentos de Evaluación Docente.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009

Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2006): Evaluación docente 2006, cambios a los instrumentos de evaluación docente. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2007): Consideraciones sobre los resultados Jornada de Reflexión Nacional sobre Carrera Profesional, en Revista Docencia Nº 33, Santiago, Chile. Colegio de Profesores de Chile A.G. (2008): Acta Asamblea General de carácter programático, 10 y 11 de enero de 2008, en el Edificio Diego Portales, Santiago. CPEIP (2006): Marco para la Buena Enseñanza, Ministerio de Educación, 5ª edición. Gajardo, Jaime (2004): Para mejorar la educación, se debe distribuir mejor la riqueza, Revista El Periodista, año 3, N° 63, viernes 4 de junio de 2004. Gajardo, Jaime (2008): Intervención en Asamblea Nacional Programática, 10 y 11 de enero de 2008, Santiago. Himmel, Erika (1992): Comentario al texto “Análisis del SIMCE y sugerencias para mejorar su impacto en la calidad” de E. Schiefelbein. Revista CPU, 1992. FLACSO, pág. 283-289. Inzunza, Jorge (2008): La evaluación docente en Chile: institucionalización y simulacro, en Sindicalismo docente en América Latina. Experiencias recientes en Bolivia, Perú, México, Chile y Argentina, Gindin, Julián (compilador), Ediciones Amsafe, Rosario, Argentina. Núñez, Iván (2000): Lo que nos dice la historia: La evaluación de los profesores en Chile, en Revista Docencia Nº 10, Santiago, Chile. Núñez, Iván (2005): El profesorado, su gremio y la reforma de los años noventa: presiones de cambio y evolución de la cultura docente, en Políticas educacionales en el cambio de siglo. La reforma del sistema escolar en Chile, Cristián Cox (editor), Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, Chile. Olivares, Josefina (1996): “Sistema de medición de la calidad de la educación de Chile: SIMCE, algunos problemas de la medición” en Revista Iberoamericana de Educación n° 10, - Evaluación de la calidad de la educación- año 1996. Referencia: http://www.oei.org.co/oeivirt/rie OPECH: Mejoramiento de la Calidad de la Educación: (mucho) más allá de las pruebas estandarizadas, Documento de Trabajo. Extraído de: www.opech.cl el 4 de febrero de 2009. Quilaqueo, Jaime (2007): Informes de encuesta sobre evaluación docente realizada por, dirigente gremial de la Novena Región en las ciudades de Victoria, Angol y Temuco. Documento del Colegio de Profesores de Chile. Redondo, J., Descouvieres, C., Rojas, K. (2004): Equidad y equidad de la educación en Chile: Reflexiones e investigaciones de eficiencia en la educación obligatoria (1990-2001), Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Chile Report to IDEA Research Network “Testing, Testing, Testing...” Seminar-Forum, México Feb. 19-21, 2009