Schooling policies for quality and economic growth
•
1 like•1,319 views
Retos y desafíos para la economía de la educación, por Eric Hanushek, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Coordinator for Economics of Education of the CESifo Research Network.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Schooling policies for quality and economic growth
Similar to Schooling policies for quality and economic growth (20)
More from Fundación Ramón Areces
More from Fundación Ramón Areces (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Schooling policies for quality and economic growth
- 1. SCHOOLING POLICIES FOR QUALITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH Eric A. Hanushek Stanford University May 2013
- 2. Key Questions 1. Does achievement matter? YES 2. Is Spain competitive? NO 3. How is Spain doing? NOT WELL 4. Are there things to be done? YES
- 3. Does achievement matter? and Is Spain competitive?
- 4. Cognitive Skills and Long Run Economic Growth
- 5. Years of Schooling and Economic Growth Without quality control With quality control
- 9. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Iceland Finland EU 2020 billion€ Improvement in Achievement Present Value of Gains to GDP for Spain
- 10. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Iceland Finland EU 2020 billion€ Improvement in Achievement 6.2% 5.0% 20.2% Present Value of Gains to GDP for Spain
- 11. How is Spain doing?
- 13. Are there things to be done?
- 14. Resource Policies • Little evidence of success • Cross country evidence • Within country – developed • Within country – developing
- 15. Resources and Performance across Countries 350 400 450 500 550 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Math performance in PISA 2003 Cumulative educational expenditure per student Mexico Belgium Iceland FranceSweden Switzerland Denmark Austria Norway USA ItalyPortugal Spain Korea Germany Ireland Czech Rep. Hungary Poland Slovak Rep. Greece Finland Netherlands Canada Japan Australia R 2 = 0.01 R 2 = 0.15
- 16. Resource Policies • Little evidence of successle evidence of success • Cross country evidence • Within country – developed • Within country – developing • Consistent with detailed analysis • class size • school characteristics
- 17. Resource Policies • Does not say “resources never have effect” • Does not say “resources cannot have effect” No expectation within current incentive structure
- 18. Teacher Quality • Teachers most important input • No identifiable characteristics • Master’s degrees • Experience* • Certification • Preparation • Professional development • Observable through both student performance and supervisor ratings • Cannot regulate and pay on characteristics
- 19. Institutional Reforms Supported by Evidence • Centralized exams • Accountability • Autonomy/decentralization
- 20. Institutional Reforms Supported by Evidence • Centralized exams • Accountability • Autonomy/decentralization • Choice • Direct performance incentives
- 21. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% s.d.performancegain Percent deselected low estimate of teacher effectiveness Iceland Alternative Estimates of Least Effective Teachers (United States distribution)
- 22. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% s.d.performancegain Percent deselected high estimate of teacher effectiveness low estimate of teacher effectiveness Iceland Alternative Estimates of Least Effective Teachers (United States distribution)
- 23. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% s.d.performancegain Percent deselected high estimate of teacher effectiveness low estimate of teacher effectiveness Iceland Finland Alternative Estimates of Least Effective Teachers (United States distribution)
- 24. Key Questions 1. Does achievement matter? YES 2. Is Spain competitive? NO 3. How is Spain doing? NOT WELL 4. Are there things to be done? YES
- 25. Australia Australia Belgium Belgium Canada Canada Finland Finland France FranceUK UK Germany Germany Italy Italy Japan Japan Korea Korea Netherlands Netherlands N. Zealand N. Zealand Norway Norway Sweden Sweden USA USA 460 480 500 520 540 560 1975 2000 Trends in Test Scores
- 26. Changes in Growth Rates vs. Changes in Test Scores
Editor's Notes
- Drops 7 negative including France and Norway
- Deselect teachers at bottommean of truncated distribution = density/cum at cutoff calculate for N(0,1) and then translate into student achievement distribution 13 years times change in meanCanada approx +0.5 sd; Finland +0.75 sd
- Deselect teachers at bottommean of truncated distribution = density/cum at cutoff calculate for N(0,1) and then translate into student achievement distribution 13 years times change in meanCanada approx +0.5 sd; Finland +0.75 sd
- Deselect teachers at bottommean of truncated distribution = density/cum at cutoff calculate for N(0,1) and then translate into student achievement distribution 13 years times change in meanCanada approx +0.5 sd; Finland +0.75 sd