Factors contributing to achievement growth in Chile

Gregory Elacqua

Instituto of Public PolicySchool of Economics

Universidad Diego Portales

CHILE 17,269,525 residents 3,395,845 students 11,511 schools Became an OECD

country in 2009

Source: Hanushek, Peterson & Woessman (2012)

Chile second in annual rate of growth in student achievement (1995-2009)

Latvia Chile

Brazil

Portuga

l

Hong Kong

German

y

Poland

Slove

nia

Colombia

United Kingd

om

Switze

rlandGree

ce

Mexico

Israel

Finlan

dIta

ly

New Ze

aland

Denmark

Korea, R

ep.

Hungary

Iran

United St

ates

Canad

a

Australia

Russian

Fed.

Austria

Spain

Japan

Netherl

ands

Argentina

France

Irelan

d

Norway

Romania

Czech Rep

.

Slova

k Rep

.

Thaila

nd

Bulgaria

Swed

en-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Estim

ated

ann

ual t

est-

scor

e ga

ins

(% o

f sta

ndar

d de

viati

on)

Source: SIMCE

Same trend in national tests (SIMCE language and math 4th grade)

1999 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

250

267

250

259

SIMCE lectura SIMCE Matemáticas

Chile in the 90’s

A. Low standard of living• GDP per capita $5,500 (ranked 6th in Latin America).

• About half of Chileans lived below the poverty line,

and 20% lived in extreme poverty.

• Only half of high school students graduated and 14%

enrolled in college.

B. Low educational expenditures

• USD$360 per student a year.

• Public spending on education 2.4% of GDP vs. 5.5% in

the Netherlands and 5.0% in the US.

C. Inadequate incentives1. Poorly designed voucher program

i. Flat voucher

ii. School selection

iii. School fees

2. No school accountabilityiv. No objective information on school quality

v. Schools not held accountable for outcomes

3. No incentives for teachersvi. No merit payvii. No teacher evaluation

Higher standard of living

Increased spending Incentives Educational

Improvement

Factors that help to explain achievement growth in Chile

I. HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING

Source: World Bank

A. GDP per capita increased by 3 fold (GDP per capita PPP, constant USD 2008)

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 $ -

$ 2,000

$ 4,000

$ 6,000

$ 8,000

$ 10,000

$ 12,000

$ 14,000

$ 16,000

$ 5,645

$ 14,599

Chile

Source: World Bank

B. Ranked 6 in Latin America, today #1 (GDP per capita PPP, constant USD 2008)

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 $ -

$ 2,000

$ 4,000

$ 6,000

$ 8,000

$ 10,000

$ 12,000

$ 14,000

$ 16,000

$ 5,645

$ 14,599

Argentina Brazil Chile Mexico Peru Uruguay

Source: CASEN

C. Cut poverty rate by two thirds

1987 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2003 2006 20090%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%45%

15%

Poverty rate

D. Eradicated extreme poverty (% extreme poverty)

1987 1990 1995 2000 20060

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

20.3 %

1.1 %

Argentina Brasil Chile México Perú UruguaySource: World Bank

E. High school graduation rates increased rapidly across SES groups (age 20-24, by income quintiles)

I II III IV V Total0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

27%

39%

53%

68%

85%

53%

64%

77%81%

89%

96%

82%

1990 2009

Source: Education at a Glance, 2008

F. Young adults have similar attainment as peers in OECD countries (% with at least upper secondary by age group)

Alem

ania

Irlan

da

Dina

mar

ca

Chile

Fran

cia

Noru

ega

Bélg

ica

Aust

ralia

Hola

nda

Rein

o Un

ido

Prom

edio

OEC

D

Nuev

a Ze

land

a

Grec

ia

Italia

Bras

il

Méx

ico

Turq

uía0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

55-64 años 25-34 años

1%

17%

11%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1935 1946 1956 1967 1973 1982 1990 2000 2011

Source: Brunner, 2008; INE; CASEN; MINEDUC.

1984: 180,000

2011: 1,015,000

G. Expansion of higher education

H. Parents of 15 years old students are more educated than in the past.

Source: SIMCE

Less than primary Primary completed

Less than high school

High school completed

College completed

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

27%

15%

19%

24%

15%13% 12%

16%

39%

20%

2001 2010

II. INCREASED EDUCATION SPENDING

Source: MINEDUC

B. Annual per student expenditure has increased fourfold since 1990. (USD 2011)

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 $ -

$ 200

$ 400

$ 600

$ 800

$ 1,000

$ 1,200

$ 1,400

$ 1,600

$360

$582

$851

$1,067

$1,479

Source: MINEDUC

C. Public and private education spending as % of GDP has doubled since 1990

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2.4 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.7 3 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.73.3 3.6

4.2

1.5 1.6 1.71.9 2 2

2.22.2

2.62.9 2.9

2.9 3 3.13

2.9

2.72.5

2.7

Public spending Private spending

Source: MINEDUC

D. Expansion of % enrollment in schools with full school day.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

8

61

27

72

Primary Secondary

Source: MINEDUC, Central Bank of Chile

E. Since 1990 teachers’ salaries have increased by 200% in real terms. (USD 2011)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 $ -

$ 500

$ 1,000

$ 1,500

$ 2,000

$ 2,500

$ 218

$ 2,178

$ 135

$ 1,089

Teachers' mean salary Teachers' minimum salary (entry salary)

Source: Enlaces, 2010

F. Students/computer ratio declined in the last decade, 79 to 9.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9079

9

Source: Enlaces, 2010

G. Targeted programs (P-900, Escuelas Criticas, Liceos Prioritarios, Montegrande)

III. INCENTIVES

A. Improvements to voucher design

i. Differentiated voucher

ii. School selection banned

iii. No school fees for low SES

students

Before SEP After SEP0

50

100

150

200

250

$ 123 $ 123

$ 80

$ 10

Base voucher Preferential voucherConcentration voucher

Source: MINEDUC, 2009

Source: MINEDUC

Private voucher school enrollment expands

1981 1990 2000 20100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

78

6056

43

15

3235

49

7 8 9 8

Municipal

Particular Subvencionado

Part Pagado

Source: MINEDUC

More than 1 million students attend for-profit schools in Chile (1/3 of enrollments

School type Schools % Schools Students % Students

Public 5.614 54% 1.498.352 46%

For-profit 3.256 31% 1.054.261 31%

Non-profit 954 9% 551.028 17%

Non-voucher 647 6% 232.821 7%

Total 10.471 100% 3.336.462 100%

Source: MINEDUC

More choice for low SES parents: In this low SES urban neighborhood in Santiago, the supply of schools almost doubled in 10 years.

Public Rankings of academic

results of schools

Information to parents about own school’s

academic result evolution and compared to similar

schools

Website focused in informing parents about school’s alternatives: price, academic

results, location, etc.

B. Test scores widely disseminated to parents, schools, and researchers

C. School accountability program

i. Schools are ranked by adjusted test scores and improvements

ii. High ranking schools have autonomy and low ranking schools must present improvement plans

iii. Failing schools schools can be closed

D. National teacher merit pay program and national public school teacher evaluation

E. Most growth explained by gains by low and middle SES students: test score gap reduced by ½ of a standard deviation in language 1/3 in mathematics on national test (SIMCE)

2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011200

220

240

260

280

300

320302 299

226

249

High Medium high Medium Medium low Low

76 50

Source: SIMCE

F. Most growth explained by gains by low and middle SES students: Chile is the country that made the most progress in narrowing the achievement gap between 2000 and 2009 in PISA literacy (13 points)

2000 2006 2009PISA: Literacy

300

350

400

450

500

550

479

512

359

405

High Medium high Medium Medium low Low

Liter

acy

scor

e in

PIS

A

120

107

Source: PISA

Conclusions

1. Higher standard of living

2. Increased spending

3. Incentives

Challenge: Still a long way to go

Source: PISA 2000, 2009

Finlan

dia

Canad

á

Nueva Ze

landa

Australi

a

Irlanda

Corea

Hong Kong-C

hina

Reino Unido

Japón

Sueci

aBélg

ica

Islandia

Austria

Noruega

Francia USA

Dinamarc

aSu

iza

Españ

a

República

Checa Italia

Aleman

ia

Liech

tenste

in

Hungría

PoloniaGrec

ia

Portuga

lRusia

Latvia

Israel

Luxemburgo

Tailan

dia

Bulgaria

México

Argentina

ChileBras

il

Indonesia

Albania

Perú0

100

200

300

400

500

600

PISA

200

0 re

sults

in Li

tera

cy

Corea

Finlan

dia

Hong Kong-C

hina

Canad

á

Nueva Ze

landa

Japón

Australia

Bélgica

Noruega

Suiza

Islandia

USA

Polonia

Liechten

steinSu

ecia

Aleman

ia

Irlanda

Francia

Dinamarc

a

Reino Unido

Hungría

Portuga

lIta

liaLat

viaGrec

ia

Españ

a

República

Checa Israel

Luxemburgo

Austria

RusiaChile

Bulgaria

México

Tailan

diaBras

il

Indonesia

Argentina

Albania

Perú0

100

200

300

400

500

600

PISA

200

9 re

sults

in li

tera

cy

PISA 2000

PISA 2009

Factors that help to explain achievement growth in Chile

Higher standard of livin

g

Increased spending

Better incentives

Educational Improvemen

t

Sense of urgency

Students and families put the quality of education at the center of the national debate

2006: High school students 2011: University students

Weak link: Chilean teachers lag behind Elementary-level future teachers’ mathematics content knowledge

Source: 2008 TEDS-MSource: 2008 TEDS-M

Georgia

Chile

Philippines

Botswana

Spain

Malaysia

Poland

International

Germany

United States

Norway

Thailand

Russian Federation

Switzerland

Singapore

Chinese Taipei

$ - $ 100 $ 200 $ 300 $ 400 $ 500 $ 600 $ 700

345

413

440

441

481

488

490

500

510

518

519

528

535

543

590

623

Weak link: Chilean teachers lag behind Elementary-level future teachers’ pedagogy content knowledge

Source: 2008 TEDS-MSource: 2008 TEDS-M

Georgia

Chile

Botswana

Philippines

Poland

Spain

International

Germany

Malaysia

Thailand

Russian Federation

Switzerland

United States

Norway

Chinese Taipei

Singapore

$ - $ 100 $ 200 $ 300 $ 400 $ 500 $ 600 $ 700

345

425

448

457

478

492

500

502

503

506

512

537

544

545

592

593

Weak link: Content and pedagogical knowledge

Source: INICIA 2011

Pedagogical knowledge Disciplinary knowledge0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

8%2%

50%

29%

42%

69%

Outstanding Acceptable Insufficient

% o

f Tea

cher

s in

eac

h le

vel

Factors contributing to achievement growth in Chile

Gregory Elacqua

Instituto of Public PolicySchool of Economics

Universidad Diego Portales