Investigación Chumacero Paredes Díaz
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Investigación Chumacero Paredes Díaz






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



4 Embeds 188 178 5 4 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Investigación Chumacero Paredes Díaz Investigación Chumacero Paredes Díaz Presentation Transcript

    • School Choice and Information Rómulo A. Chumacero Daniel Gómez Ricardo D. Paredes
    • Motivation
      • The Chilean educational voucher system was introduced in 1981
      • Pillar of the system:
        • Parent’s right to choose would foster competition and improve quality
        • Rejection of low quality schools would lead to declining number of students, and eventually eliminate them from the market
      • This line of reasoning was questioned by surveys:
        • Most important factor for choosing school: distance
        • Parents value quality but do not know results of standardized tests
    • Contributions
      • Role of information on school choice
        • Fills gaps and helps make better choice
        • Information used correlated with quality (“as if”)
        • Don’t know, don’t care
      • Natural experiment
        • Score results were not always public
      • Contrast what is said with what is done
          • How do parents really act
          • (declared versus reveled preferences)
    • Structure of the Paper
      • The data
      • The model
      • The results
      • Concluding remarks
    • The Data (measuring distance)
      • SIMCE: Test scores, characteristics of schools and households, location of school, but not of household
      • CASEN: Characteristics of household, school chosen, and block of household
      • School directory: address of schools
        • Digital maps (Mapcity and Dictuc)
        • Estimate Euclidian distance from centroid of the block (home and school)
        • 2003: 2,310 out of 2,312 schools in the 34 counties in the Santiago area
    • Natural experiment
      • Results of 1995 test were made public in April 1996
      • Parents had already enrolled children
      • CASEN survey conducted in 1996
      • How were choices made prior to making results public?
      • Compare 1996 and 2003
        • How to consider that Santiago has grown?
        • Blocks are not directly comparable
        • Role of information
          • Quasi-matching
    • How things really are (Distance)
    • How things really are (Distance and age)
    • How things really are (Attending the nearest school)
    • Elite voucher schools (where they are)
    • Elite voucher schools (where the students live)
    • How things really are (Quality)
    • How things really are (Competition: Schools in 2 kms radius)
    • The Empirical Model
      • Parents consider several factors
        • Child specific and common to schools (age, gender, income, education of parents, x )
        • School specific (type, quality, cost, other factors, y )
        • Child and school specific (distance, z )
      • Agent i chooses school h if u i,j ≤u i,h for all j
        • Problem: In 2003 there were 2310 schools and 7479 students. Compute and model more than 17 million distances and possible choices
    • The Empirical Model
      • Define n i as “nearest school to household i ”
      • QML estimator
    • Determinants ( w )
      • Individual or household characteristics: Gender, age, parents’ education, and (log) per capita income.
      • Nearest school: Quality of the school (average result in standardized tests), distance of the nearest school from the household, price.
      • Chosen school: Quality of the school (average result in standardized tests), type of school (municipal, subsidized, private), price.
      • “ Competition”: Number of schools in a 2 kilometers radius from the household.
    • Main results
      • The probability of chosing the nearest school increases:
        • Women
        • Younger
        • Poorer
        • Less educated parents
        • Quality of the nearest school
        • Fewer schools in the area
        • Cheaper (2003)
      • Trade-offs (Distance – quality)
      • Consistent in sub-samples (“as if”)
    • Probability of choosing nearest school
    • Concluding remarks
      • Policy prescriptions should not be guided by anecdotal evidence
      • As they should, families have always valued quality (among other factors) and have behaved “as if” they knew it
      • Additional information has helped to take more informed decisions
      • Extreme caution when tampering with incentives
    • School Choice and Information Rómulo A. Chumacero Daniel Gómez Ricardo D. Paredes