Teaching quality and decentralization
Maciej Jakubowski Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw
CASE – Center for Social and Economic Research
Outline
Overview of the process of decentralization
Education reform of 1999/2000
Accessibility and costs of education
Impact of decentralization on teaching quality
Data and methodology
Results with discussion
Summary
2
Overview of the process of decentralization
Started in 1990 – the very beginning of transformation
1990: Gmina – the lowest level (ca. 2500) 1999: 16 Voivodships (regions) 315 Powiats (middle-tier)
Long list of gmina responsibilities, also in social services: education, social welfare, and health
Substantial amount of shares in national and local taxes or fees
Very limited possibilities to alter tax base
3
Substantial variation of revenues
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Gmina revenue per capita (2005 prices)
rural
Source: Own calculations based on data from Central Statistical Office
urban
Decentralization of education
From 1990 preschool education is gmina’s own responsibility funded from own revenues
1990-1996: ownership of schools gradually transferred to gmina 1999-2001:
upper secondary schools run by powiats newly established lower secondary schools run by gmina
5
% of schools 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Primary schools ownership 1990-2004
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
year central government
gmina
private
Source: Central Statistical Office
6
Reforms of 1999/2000: Introduction of per pupil funding
Per pupil funding adjusted for rural areas and disabilities
Gmina had to cover school running costs (mainly teacher salaries)
If all needed payments are fulfilled then money could be spend on anything else
However,this is not really a voucher system
School choice is rather limited
Subsidy goes to gmina budget and then to a school
Gmina decides how to share funds among their schools
7
30
40
50
60
70
80
Participation rate in preschool education of 3-6-year-olds
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998 year urban
2000
2002 rural
Source: Own calculations based on the data from the Central Statistical Office
2004
2006
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
School expenditure per capita
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
primary lower secondary Source: own calculations based on the Regional Data Bank
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
transitional
9
Decentralization and teaching quality: Data Crucial variables
individual examination results
90% of student population
Intake scores: exam at the end of primary school (2002-2004)
Final scores: exam at the end of lower secondary school (2005-2007)
Three cohorts: 2002-2005, 2003-2006, 2004-2007
Expenditures
Expenditure per student over a period of learning
Fixed 2005 prices (deflated using Eurostat’s HICP) 10
Decentralization and teaching quality: Methodology
For primary and preschool education:
simple random effects model which explains student test scores using fiscal and school system variables It is not a proper model to measure effects on quality
In lower secondary schools value-added analysis is possible
Intake score reflects achievement level in the begining of lower secondary education but also observable and hidden student characteristics Value-added model considers intake scores in explaining final scores, thus, it measures achievement growth It is assumed that achievement growth is mainly affected by school efforts or teaching quality 11
Decentralization and teaching quality: value-added model
,
.
Random intercept model yisg 0 Xisgβk 1sprisg 2 sprisg2 wg ug vsg isg u g ~ N (0, u2 )
vsg ~ N (0, v2 )
isg ~ N (0, 2 )
Random slope model
2 yisg 0 X isgβ k 0 wg ( 1 1 wg g )s~ prisg 2 sprisg u g isg
cov(u g , g ) 0 12
Decentralization and teaching quality: primary school results
Small, precisely estimated, positive effects of expenditure and preschool participation
These effects are multiplicative
However, they are negligible from a practical point of view
Additionally, this is just correlation
Cannot be used for causal inference
13
Decentralization and teaching quality: lower secondary school results
Remember: these schools were introduced in 19992001
Small negative effects of expenditure on achievement growth
Negligible from a practical point of view
Thus, there is no effect of decentralized expenditures on teaching quality
There is also no effect of expenditure on intake score slope no ‘equalizing’ effect 14
Summary
Decentralization didn’t help in increasing preschool participation rates
After more than 10 years of decentralization we observe important variation in gmina expenditure per student and overall increase in school spending
However, there is no effect of expenditure on teaching quality
No effect for low as well as for high achievers
15
Summary
It seems that decentralized expenditure are not affecting teaching quality
Thus, one of the potential benefits of decentralization is not observed
But, it could be that overall efficiency of the system increased
But, the system is still centrally regulated
Nevertheless, one should rethink any policy which is based on the assumption that local governments will effectively allocate the money
16
References
Maciej Jakubowski, Irena Topińska, 2008, Impact of decentralization on education in Poland (prepared for the Handbook of Fiscal Decentralization, vol. 2, forthcoming)
Maciej Jakubowski, 2008, Decentralization and teaching quality, working paper
Maciej Jakubowski, 2007, Czy wydatki na gimnazja są efektywne?, Gospodarka Narodowa 11-12/2007
Maciej Jakubowski, Irena Topińska, 2007, Impact of Decentralization on Public Service Delivery and Equity. Education and Health Sectors in Poland 1998 – 2003, UNDP research report, CASE – Center for Social and Economic Analysis
17
