PPPS IN EDUCATION: STATE OF THE ART OF RESEARCH AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS (A REALIST EVALUATION PERSPECTIVE)

Antoni VergerIS Academie ‘Education and

Development’

Structure of the presentation

1. Limitations of current research on PPPs to guide policy decisions

2. Research framework to study PPPs based on the principles of realist evaluation.

The global expansion of PPPs

EVIDENCE

BASED

POLICY

The case of Chile

“The overall results of the reform of 1981 are still unclear” (Fischer et al 2005) UNCERTAIN

“There is a positive but moderate effect of competition on average test scores at the country level” (Valenzuela 2006) POSITIVE-NEUTRAL

“Empirical research indicates that more than 20 years of reform did not lead to improvements in average academic achievement (Patrinos et al 2009) NEUTRAL

“School choice has increased stratification while having little effect on average achievement” (McEwan, Urquiola and Vegas 2008) NEGATIVE

“The Chilean system does not become more unequal because of the existence of voucher schools, but rather because of the absence of voucher schools in some areas” (Gallego 2006) POSITIVE

PART 2: The realist evaluation of PPPs Principles of RE:

Programmes are hypothesis about social betterment that need to be unpacked and tested

Programmes are embedded in social systems and work selectively Social programmes will have effects only if

people choose to make them work

Positivistic approach

Three steps to open the black-box

1. Identify and synthesize the theory of action backing the PPP programme

2. Sample: Identify and delimit a community/population where the intervention is going on

3. Fieldwork: Explore the intermediate relations that make up the PPP (the ‘things’ that happen between the intervention and its outcomes).

H1: For middle class families, is less costly getting quality information H2: Rather than on school quality, families base choice on other criteria

H3: Bad schools lose some students, but not so many as the theory would expect H4: Good performing schools perceive more pressure

H5: ‘Invested selection’ happens H6: IS > cream skimming, peer-effects losesH7: Choice > expectations and motivationH8: PPPS might incur into efficiency loses

H9: non-profit providers avoid rural and unpopulated areas

To conclude There is no enough dialogue between policy

reports/reviews and high quality academic research (yet).

Rigorous research should not simply answers whether programmes “work or not”, and find out: How do social programmes bring about their effects? What programmes work for whom under what

circumstances? The theory behind PPPs is so complex that it’s

uncertain it will achieve all the expected outcomes, especially in low-income countries.

To conclude

Finally, the research agenda on PPPs should not simply focus on programmatic aspects, but also look at broader governance issues such as: The way authority is transformed in the context of

PPPs. Whether the managerial discourse on risk taking

and competition is appropriate for the distribution of a public good as education.

Whether PPPs and similar managerial education reforms pay sufficient attention to the complexity of education processes and students learning.