Ludger Wößmann

Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:

Lessons from International Analysis

International Seminar

“Demand, Autonomy and Accountability in Schooling”

OECD and Department of Education and Training,

Flemish Community of Belgium

15-16 May, 2006

“Empowering” the Demand Side

• Basically all countries: – Ultimate responsibility and supervision by the state

• But: public vs. private involvement in 2 broad tasks: – Operation of schools– Funding of schools

• Public-private partnership (PPP) = any collaboration between public and private entities

Two forms of PPP: 1.Public operation + private funding

•E.g., parents have to pay tuition fees for public schools

2.Private operation + public funding•Private operation by business, church, …•Public funding through base funding or vouchers

Public Funding and Public Operation of Schools

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Public funding

Public operation

BEL

NORISLSWE

FIN

DEURUSLVA

POLUSACZECHE

GBRAUTPRT

HUNGRC

NZL

ITA

LUX

BRA

DNK

ESP

FRAJPN

MEX

KOR

IRL

NLD

Average share of

public funding

Share of publicly operated

schools Difference

Average share of public funding in publicly operated schools

Average share of public funding in privately operated schools

Difference

(K) (L) (M) (N) (O) (P)

BEL 87.5 24.6 63.0 95.1 85.0 10.1 CHE 93.8 93.5 0.3 98.5 25.5 73.0 DEU 97.3 95.9 1.4 98.2 77.1 21.1 FIN 99.8 97.2 2.6 99.9 98.3 1.5 FRA 75.5 77.8 -2.4 77.3 69.1 8.2 GBR 89.8 90.8 -1.0 98.7 2.2 96.4 GRC 83.7 95.8 -12.0 87.4 0.0 87.4 IRL 91.1 39.5 51.6 98.0 86.6 11.4 ISL 99.4 99.2 0.2 99.9 40.4 59.5 ITA 75.2 94.2 -19.0 79.2 10.1 69.1 JPN 72.5 69.6 2.9 88.4 36.0 52.4 KOR 49.1 50.6 -1.5 54.9 43.3 11.6 MEX 36.8 84.5 -47.6 43.6 0.0 43.6 NLD 94.7 26.0 68.7 94.7 94.7 0.0 NOR 99.5 98.5 1.0 99.8 82.3 17.5 RUS 93.5 100.0 -6.5 93.5 SWE 99.9 96.6 3.3 99.9 99.3 0.6 USA 91.6 94.6 -2.9 95.6 22.1 73.6 Mean 86.9 83.0 3.9 91.2 65.9 25.4

International Differences in Public Funding and Public Operation of

Schools

Why Should It Matter?

Positive aspects of involvement of:

Public sector Private sector

Provision Inculcation of

beliefs and cultural values

Incentives for cost containment and

qualitative innovation

Funding Enabling choice

for credit-constrained families

Increased accountability

Student Achievement in the Two Forms of PPPs

lowhigh

low

high

74.6

36.636.7

0.00

20

40

60

80

Public funding

Public operation

Math score (relative to lowest category)

Public Operation/Funding and Math Performance across Countries

Country-level public-private measures School-level public-private measures (Q) (R) (S) (T) (U) (V) (W) (X) (Y)

Top left quadrant 37.93 *** (12.52) Bottom left quad. 0.02 (7.73) Bottom right quad. -36.64 ***

(8.17)

Public operation -74.55 *** -93.80 *** -193.15 ** -19.68 *** -24.69 *** -9.05

(14.78) (13.81) (94.26) (2.40) (2.69) (5.98) Public funding 24.51 91.05 *** 3.73 1.64 18.56 *** 30.18 *** (26.69) (27.03) (77.00) (3.53) (3.96) (6.40) Interaction 113.45 -20.37 *** (109.86) (7.63)

Observations 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 72,493 Strata 29 29 29 29 PSUs 29 29 29 29 29 4,870 4,870 4,870 4,870 R2 0.314 0.309 0.293 0.315 0.316 0.297 0.293 0.298 0.298

Public Operation/Funding and Reading/Science Performance across

Countries

Reading Science

Country-level public-

private measures School-level public-private measures

Country-level public- private measures

School-level public-private measures

(Z) (AA) (AB) (AC) (AD) (AE) (AF) (AG) (AH) (AI)

Top left quadrant 28.28 ** 17.00 (10.45) (12.45) Bottom left quad. -9.56 5.86 (6.39) (6.61) Bottom right quad. -13.06 ** -18.36 ***

(5.76) (6.53)

Public operation -56.95 *** -35.15 -19.27 *** -7.04 -55.61 *** -183.89 ** -17.94 *** -6.31

(10.71) (70.13) (2.30) (4.88) (11.86) (80.54) (2.42) (5.01) Public funding 59.06 ** 78.07 8.35 ** 17.42 *** 22.07 -90.88 0.79 9.39 * (23.62) (59.05) (3.29) (5.37) (20.49) (66.11) (3.36) (5.24) Interaction -24.80 -15.91 ** 146.01 -15.11 ** (84.64) (6.30) (94.11) (6.41)

Observations 130,242 130,242 130,242 130,242 130,242 72,388 72,388 72,388 72,388 72,388 Strata 29 29 29 29 PSUs 29 29 29 4,882 4,882 29 29 29 4,870 4,870 R2 0.310 0.311 0.311 0.306 0.306 0.254 0.256 0.257 0.252 0.252

Interactions of Operation and Funding

Effect of public funding depending on type of operation:

17.4

1.50

5

10

15

20

Private operation Public operation

Effect of public funding on reading score

Autonomy and Accountability

Complementarity: school autonomy + external exams

• School autonomy allows: – Use of superior local knowledge (good for learning)– Opportunistic behaviour (bad for learning)

•= Decentralised decision-makers get away with behaving in ways that advance their own interest rather than the system’s interest

• If there is (a) asymmetric (decentralised) information = imperfect monitoring = limited accountability

•And (b) opposing interests

Autonomy may be good or bad for student performance– Depending on whether in a given decision-making area,

•there are local knowledge leads and/or incentives for opportunistic behaviour

•External exams can ease asymmetric information– Provide information on how individual students

perform relative to national (or regional) student population

Ease the monitoring problems inherent in educationAlign incentives of local decision-makers with

system goalsMake it more likely that schools act according to the

goals of the system if they are given autonomy

By introducing accountability, external exams ease the “bad” effects of autonomy, ensuring a “good” net effect

Autonomy and Accountability

Effects of Autonomy on Student Performance

— With and Without External Exams —

Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance

– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –

NoYes

No

Yes

55.5

76.2

23.7

0.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Central exams

School autonomy over teacher salaries

TIMSS + TIMSS-R

Math test

score

NoYes

No

Yes

32.536.4

20.8

0.00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Central exams

School autonomy over teacher salaries

PISA

Math test

score

Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance

– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –

NoYes

No

Yes

64.1 67.6

22.7

0.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Central exams

Teacher influence on resource funding

TIMSS + TIMSS-R

Math test

score

Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance

– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –

NoYes

No

Yes

4.5

23.6

11.7

0.00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Central exams

School autonomy in determining course content

PISA

Math test

score

Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance

– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –

Digression on Standardized Testing – With and Without Standards/Goals

–

NoYes

No

Yes

19.1

27.9

10.2

0.00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Central exams

Standardized tests

PISA

Math test

score

NoYes

No

Yes

43.2 44.3

9.8

0.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Central exams

School autonomy over school budget

TIMSS + TIMSS-R

Math test

score

Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance – With Opportunism and Without Local Knowledge

Lead –

NoYes

No

Yes

46.545.1

6.10.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Central exams

Collective teacher influence on curriculum

TIMSS + TIMSS-R

Math test

score

Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance – With Opportunism and Without Local Knowledge

Lead –

NoYes

No

Yes

43.7

56.2

0.0

16.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Central exams

Individual teacher influence on curriculum

TIMSS + TIMSS-R

Math test

score

Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance – Without Opportunism and With Local Knowledge

Lead –

Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:

Main Results from International Analyses

•Public-private partnerships: – Public school operation student performance– Public school funding student performance Most effective school systems: PPP where the state

finances the schools and contracts the private sector to run them

•Autonomy and external exams: – External exit exams student performance– School autonomy in systems with external exit

examsComplementarity: Decentralisation works – if

combined with external examination.– Education policy should combine the two:

•Setting and testing standards externally •but leaving it up to schools how to pursue them.

Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:

Some Unresolved Issues

•Equity of student outcomes•Non-cognitive skills as alternative outcome

measures• Interactions between choice, autonomy and

accountability•Additional measures of choice, autonomy and

accountability •PISA 2003 data

The EENEE Website– www.education-economics.org –

•www.education-economics.org as a forum to promote and disseminate research on the Economics of Education in Europe:

www.education-economics.org

Economics of Education

EENEE

Mapping of Researchers

What’s New

Symposia

References