Perspectivas Actuales Nacionales e Internacionales en Evaluación EducativaUniversidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo, Santander, 7 July 2016Presentation byLuka BoeskensDirectorate for Education and Skills
Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools[Insights from the OECD School Resources Review]
Purpose and scope• Motivation• Main issues for analysis• Conceptual framework
Methodology• Country participation• Analytical phase• Review phase• Synthesis phase (outlook)
Policy challenges• Sources of inefficiency• Policy approaches
OECD School Resources Review
0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
511.338208
385.595556
368.102547
426.737491420.512968
409.291568
447.984415
376.488601
387.824630
413.281467409.626613
391.459889
438.738260
422.632355
471.131461478.823277
490.571021
477.044455
612.675536
481.644744
498.957882520.545522
466.481430
517.501097
553.766659
487.063181
499.749903
518.070400513.525056
484.319298
494.984674
485.321181
573.468314
518.750335
536.406918
501.127422501.497460492.795697
522.971758
478.260636
514.745239
UK
504.150766500.026757
481.366786
505.540743
489.373070
530.931004
489.845098R² = 0.369063315519053R² = 0.00587924272458274
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rform
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)
Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000
Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more
PISA 2012,Fig IV.1.8
Purpose: Provide analysis and policy advice on how to govern, distribute, utilise and manage resources so that they contribute to achieving countries’ educational objectives to the fullest.Levels of education system covered
o Pre-primary (ECEC), primary and secondary education levels, including vocational and pre-vocational education (VET) at secondary level
Administrational levels of analysiso System level o Sub-system level (regional and local)o School level
Purpose and Scope of the Review
“What policies best ensure that school resources are effectively used to improve student outcomes?”
Types of resource inputso Financial resources (e.g. public funding of individual schools)o Human resources (e.g. teachers, administrators and their use of time)o Physical/material resources (e.g. school network, buildings, equipment)o Learning time
Types of outputso Access, participation and completiono Learning outcomes (e.g. cognitive, non-cognitive, key competencies)o Labour market and social outcomes (e.g. social mobility, work
productivity)
Purpose and Scope of the Review
Looking at both equity and efficiency of resource use…
Effectiveness o Educational effectiveness refers to the ability of a school or school system
to adequately accomplish stated education objectives.o Studies of educational effectiveness analyse whether specific resource
inputs have positive effects on outputs, and if so, how large these effects are.
Efficiencyo Educational efficiency, on the other hand, refers to the achievement of
stated education objectives at the lowest possible cost.o That is, efficiency is effectiveness plus the additional requirement that
this is achieved in the least expensive manner
Purpose and Scope: Key concepts
-0.500.511.5300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700R² = 0
Equity in resource allocation (index points)
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rform
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably
Greater equity
Less equity
Adjusted by per capita GDP
Fig IV.1.11
Resource Governance Resource Distribution
Resource Utilisation Resource Management
How to distribute resources acrosslevels, sectors and student groups?
How to utilise resources for different programmes and priorities at the point
of use?
How to manage, monitor andfollow up on resource use?
How to govern, plan andimplement resource use?
Main issues for analysis
1 Governance
- For education
- For schooling
Resources available
Planning resource
useSources of
revenue
Implementingpolicies to improve
effectiveness
Linking to school system
governance
- Defining prioritiesand targets- Distribution of responsibilities- Forecasting and Simulation- Instruments andMethods
- Clarity of objectives- Consensus building- Communication & consultation- Policy experi-ments& pilots
2 Resource Distribution
Between - Admin levels- Education levels / sectors
Financial transfers
Targeted funding for
specific groups
School funding Funding
formulae
Human resources
Physical resources
- Targeted programmes - Funding for SEN- Financial aid- Free school meals- After-school support - Ensuring adequate
supply- Attracting &retaining staff- Recruitment & career systems
3 Resource Utilisation
- T&L environments
- Using facilities & materials
Organising schools
School staff
- Organising school
leadership - Allocating
teacher resources to
students
Organising student learning
time
Matching resources to
students’needs
- Use of teachers’ time- Tasks beyond teaching- Support staff- Expert teachers- Class size
- Differentiated/ personalised instruction- Mentoring- Out-of-school support- Grouping of students
4 Resource Management
Competency frameworks
Building capacity to
manage resources
Monitoring resource
useTransparency
IncentivesReporting
- Evaluatingeffectiveness of resource use- School accountability for resource use- Feeding evaluation results into nextbudgetary cycle - Outcome-based
planning- Intrinsic motivation- Rewards and sanctions
ContextEconomic
Demographic
Political
Cultural
Governance
Optimal outputsAccess, participation,
completionLearning outcomes
Labour market & social outcomes
Resource Distribution
Resource Utilisation
Resource Managemen
t
Education System Goals
Conceptual framework
Conceptual framework
2 METHODOLOGY
The Review is organised in three phases:o Analytical Phase: bring together evidence-based policy lessons from
existing data and research: literature reviews and country background reports (CBRs).
o Review Phase: provide tailored policy advice to individual countries based on in-depth country review visits.
o Synthesis phase: generate overall policy conclusions based on evidence from the analytic and review phases.
Methodology: Three phases
Work is guided by Group of National Experts on School Resources (GNE) and supported by collaborations:o Within the OECD: INES, PISA, TALIS, CERI work (e.g. Governing
Complex Education Systems – participation in Review of Uruguay), ECEC policy work, work by the Public Governance Directorate.
o With social partners: BIAC, TUAC (Permanent Observers to GNE on School Resources)
o With other international organisations: e.g. Eurydice, UNESCO, Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions (OBESSU), IADB, European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education
o Formal partnership: European Commission: Partially covering participation costs of countries which are part of the EU’s Erasmus+ Programme and providing some resources for background work.
o Formal collaboration with the World Bank for the Review of Kazakhstan, which extends to participation in GNE.
Methodology: Collaboration
Methodology: Country participation
The following levels of participation are possible for each country:o GNE meetings: Participation in meetings of the Group of National
Experts (all OECD members countries are part of the GNE)
o Country Background Report: Preparation of a Country Background Report, whose information will be reflected in final comparative analysis
o Country Review: Preparation by the OECD Secretariat of a Country Review report providing in-depth analysis and policy recommendations
• Austria • Belgium (Flemish Community)• Chile• Colombia• Czech Republic• Denmark• Estonia• Kazakhstan• Lithuania• Slovak Republic• Uruguay
Country Reviews (11)
• Belgium (French Community)• Iceland• Luxembourg• Spain• Slovenia• Sweden
Country Background Reports (6)
Methodology: Country participation
o 2-3 additional countries expected to join soono Countries can still join to create Country Background Report or to opt for a
full Country Review
The Secretariat undertakes background work through the preparation of literature reviews:
Published:– School Size Policies (Macarena Ares)– Student Learning Time (Anna Gromada and Claire Shewbridge)– Learning Support Staff (Francesc Masdeu)– Budgeting and Accounting in Education Systems (Tala Fakharzadeh)
To be published:– Targeted School Funding– Funding of Vocational Education and Training– Funding of Special Needs Education – Public Funding of Private Schools
Methodology: Analytical background work
The Secretariat gathers data on countries’ policies and practices through Country Background Reports (CBRs):CBRs are prepared by countries, based on the Review’s common framework.
9 CBRs published:– Iceland, Kazakhstan, Slovak Republic, Austria, Belgium (Flemish
Community), Denmark, Uruguay, Lithuania and Estonia
8 CBRs in preparation: – Czech Republic, Sweden, Belgium (French Community), Chile,
Luxembourg, Slovenia, Colombia and Spain
Methodology: Analytical background work
In-depth country reviews
Drawing on the CBRs, OECD-led Review Teams conduct an in-depth review and prepare Country Reviews with specific advice to individual countries.
6 Country Reviews have been published: Kazakhstan, Belgium (Flemish Community), Slovak Republic, Lithuania, Estonia and Austria.4 more Country Reviews to be published this year: • Czech Republic (July)• Denmark (September)• Uruguay (September/October)• Chile (October/November)
Methodology: Review phase (1)
Review visits:• Preliminary 2-day visit to plan the country review visits• Involving diverse set of external experts
Focus areas for country reviews:Countries select from among the thematic modules proposed by the Review.The most prevalent themes addressed in country reviews thus far include:• Review of School Funding
– Funding formulas – Funding for special needs education– Funding for VET
• Review of the School Network organisation, including– Addressing small schools / school consolidation– Provision of school places
• Review of the Human Resources management, particularly of the teaching workforce• Review of Equity of Resource Use
Methodology: Review phase (2)
3 Thematic Reports:Next phase: Bring together the evidence and materials produced through the
OECD Country Reviews and present the key findings and policy messages. Proposed foci:
• Funding of School Education (early 2017)
• Organisation of the School Network• Management of Human Resources
Reports will provide:
• Overview of trends, practices and policy developments
• Reviews of the literature
• Examples of successful policy initiatives
• Policy options grounded in analysis
Methodology: Synthesis phase (1)
Principal sources of evidence for thematic report:
Country BackgroundReports
Thematic Report on the Fundingof School Education
Analysis in CountryReview reports
Research-BasedEvidence
(e.g. Literature Reviews)
Analysis of international data (e.g. Education at a Glance, PISA, TALIS,
Eurydice, World Bank)
Collection of qualitative data on country approaches to school funding
(via questionnaires)
Methodology: Synthesis phase (2)
Thematic Report on Funding aims to…
• …provide an international comparative analysis of funding policies in school education;
• …provide a stock-take of current school funding policies and practices in countries;
• …draw attention to effective school funding policy initiatives;
• …develop a comprehensive framework for the development of school funding policies;
• …propose evidence-based policy options for the development of school funding policies; and
• …identify priorities for follow-up work at national, regional and international levels.
Thematic Report: Purpose
3 POLICY CHALLENGES
27
School Resource Use: Major objectives and concerns
Efficient use of resources:• Matching supply of and demand for education services
- Potential concern: Dropouts; inadequate transitions; poor labour market outcomes
• Balancing quality education with cost of provision- Potential concern: Small schools and small classes
• Making an effective use of human resources- Potential concern: Poor use of teacher resources
• Making an effective use of school infrastructure
Equitable use of resources:• Distributing resources equally (same resources for similar type of
provision -- horizontal equity)- Potential concern: Level of resources differ across similar students
• Distributing resources to provide same educational opportunity (resources allocated according to needs -- vertical equity)
- Potential concern: Poor outcomes of disadvantaged student groups
School Resource Use: Major objectives and concerns
Efficient use of resources:• Matching supply of and demand for education services
- Potential concern: Dropouts; inadequate transitions; poor labour market outcomes
• Balancing quality education with cost of provision- Potential concern: Small schools and small classes
• Making an effective use of human resources- Potential concern: Poor use of teacher resources
• Making an effective use of school infrastructure
Equitable use of resources:• Distributing resources equally (same resources for similar type of
provision -- horizontal equity)- Potential concern: Level of resources differ across similar students
• Distributing resources to provide same educational opportunity (resources allocated according to needs -- vertical equity)
- Potential concern: Poor outcomes of disadvantaged student groups
Sources of inefficiency (1): Dropouts, inadequate education transitions, poor labour market outcomes
Causes:• Supply of education services does not meet needs of all students
- Little diversity of offers- VET offers not sufficiently connected to the labour market (e.g. not
including workplace-based component)
• Early student tracking – students moving downstream to less demanding programmes
• Little individual / differentiated support – for an increasingly heterogeneous student population
• Grade repetition (see next slide)
Japa
n
Nor
way
Est
onia
Icel
and
Isra
el
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Slo
veni
a
Pol
and
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Kor
ea
Sw
eden
Finl
and
Den
mar
k
New
Zea
land
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Aus
tralia
Can
ada
Irela
nd
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Aus
tria
Italy
Por
tuga
l
Ger
man
y
Spa
in
Fran
ce
Net
herla
nds
Bel
gium
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Total cost per repeater (one grade year)Total annual cost, relative to total expenditure on primary and secondary education (%)
USD
, PPP
s
%
Grade repetition is an expensive policy
Sources of inefficiency (1): Dropouts, inadequate education transitions, poor labour market outcomes
Policy approaches:• Supply of education services to align with student needs
- Greater diversity of school offerings- VET offerings more relevant to the labour-market (worked-based component) –
links to employers- Greater partnership between general and vocational schools- A good degree of school choice – to stimulate a more diverse and innovative
school offer
• Informing and facilitating student choice- Strengthening career guidance- Pathways across educational tracks/options
• Supporting students with learning difficulties- Greater individualised support- Avoid early tracking- Targeted funding for students at risk (e.g. scholarships)
Sources of inefficiency (2): Small schools and small classes
Causes• Demographic changes
- Fall in birth rates- Population emigration versus immigration- Greater demand in urban areas and declining population in rural, more
isolated areas
• Fragmentation of supply across small providers- E.g. small municipalities
• Rigid boundaries across education sub-systems and levels of administration – lack of co-ordination of provision
• Fragmentation of supply in secondary education – specialised curriculum and teachers
• Inadequate regulations on opening and closing schools- Private providers with smaller classes
Sources of inefficiency (2): Small schools and small classes
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 202050
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 to 4 years 5 to 9 years10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years
Belgium
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 202050
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 to 4 years 5 to 9 years10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years
Lithuania
Sources of inefficiency (2): Small schools and small classes
Causes• Demographic changes
- Fall in birth rates- Population emigration versus immigration- Greater demand in urban areas and declining population in rural, more
isolated areas
• Fragmentation of supply across small providers- E.g. small municipalities
• Rigid boundaries across education sub-systems and levels of administration – lack of co-ordination of provision
• Fragmentation of supply in secondary education – specialised curriculum and teachers
• Inadequate regulations on opening and closing schools- Private providers with smaller classes
Sources of inefficiency (2): Small schools and small classes
Policy options• School consolidation
- Closing / downsizing services of individual schools- Sharing of resources among schools- Clustering of schools
• Provide local services to younger children (in a given distance)• Co-ordination and planning
- Co-ordination across levels of school administration- Regional planning of education services- Co-operation between local providers (e.g. municipalities)- Modular approach to provision
• Rationalise education offerings in secondary education- Reducing diversity in cognitive outcomes in early years instead
• Regulated entry into the school network- Assessment of need and minimum school and class size
School Resource Use: School consolidation
Approaches to consolidation• Establishing criteria for consolidation
- Cost of provision- Distance to alternative school options for children- School’s role in the local community- Quality of the education provided by the school
• Establishing financial incentives for consolidation- Minimum school size and class size to obtain public funding- Little funding compensation for small size
• Providing central financial support for the transition period- Transfer of students to new school- Defining new use for old school building- Providing financial support for redundant teachers
Sources of inefficiency (2): Small schools and small classes
Policy options• School consolidation
- Closing / downsizing services of individual schools- Sharing of resources among schools- Clustering of schools
• Provide local services to younger children (within a given distance)• Co-ordination and planning
- Co-ordination across levels of school administration- Regional planning of education services- Co-operation between local providers (e.g. municipalities)
• Rationalise education offerings in secondary education- Reducing diversity in cognitive outcomes in early years instead
• Regulated entry into the school network- Assessment of need and minimum school and class size
Mathematical formula with monetary values attached to variablesPotential to reach efficiency and equity objectives but these are by no means guaranteed – but clearly improves transparency of funding distribution.
Characteristics:(i) Level of formula: national formula for individual schools / or to
distribute funding to local authorities; formulas developed by local authorities.
(ii) Costs covered by formula: typically a formula for personnel costs and a formula for operating costs (e.g. heating, electricity, maintenance).
(iii) Typical groups of variables: student numbers and grade level; student characteristics; school characteristics; curriculum and educational programmes.
Funding formulas: Definition and characteristics
Choices need to be made – there is no single best practice:• Comprehensiveness of the formula: proportion of total funding distributed
through formula.
• Ear-marked or not: possible areas for ear-marked money.
• Adjustment for small schools: e.g. compensation coefficient for certain student brackets.
• Variables to be used: mostly inputs (outputs such as degree completions might have undesired effects); student groups with different weights.
• Per-student or per-class formula: funding on the number of students or the number of classes
Funding formulas: Implementation challenges
A number of challenges exist in implementing formulas:• Estimating cost coefficients is difficult: cannot estimate cost of providing
education of a given quality.
• Actual costs might differ across localities and schools: price of certain inputs might be different; how to account for differences in teacher composition in terms of experience and qualifications.
• “Discontinuities” introduced by school size and class size categories: may reduce incentives for competition (effect of “marginal” student).
• Simplicity vs sensitivity to local conditions: simple formula vs need to capture differences across local conditions.
• Need for local discretion vs inefficiencies: local adjustment of formula amounts desirable but could reallocate resources to more inefficient schools.
• Requires good quality data: e.g. student and teacher-level data.
Funding Formulas: Implementation challenges
42
Thank you for your attention
All publications of the School Resources Review can be found at: www.oecd.org/edu/school/schoolresourcesreview.htm
For further information:[email protected]
Top Related