Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2024252525> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2024252525 endingPage "27" @default.
- W2024252525 startingPage "1" @default.
- W2024252525 abstract "School Choice, Stratification, and Information on School Performance: Lessons from Chile Patrick J. McEwan, Miguel Urquiola, and Emiliana Vegas (bio) In the early 1980s, Chile implemented a nationwide school choice system, under which the government finances education via a flat per-student subsidy (or voucher) to the public or private school chosen by a family. At present, about 94 percent of all schools (public, religious, and secular private) are voucher funded. More than half of urban schools are private, and most of these operate as for-profit institutions.1 Since the early 1990s, Chile has also publicized information on school performance and increased per pupil expenditure substantially. Despite these and other reforms, Chile has found it challenging to improve students’ learning outcomes.2 Hsieh and Urquiola find that the country’s relative performance in international tests did not change much between 1970 and 1999.3 Its performance on the 2000 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is not only much lower than the OECD average but is similar to that of other Latin American countries and low relative to countries with similar income per capita.4 [End Page 1] Recent discussions and events in Chile reflect disappointment consistent with such findings. For instance, Engel and Navia observe that Chile is doing relatively well in terms of education quantity, but confronts problems with respect to quality.5 In 2006, student protests resulted in renewed government commitments to address education quality. Additionally, there was surprising agreement among candidates in the last presidential election that education policy should address high levels of inequality. Chile’s experience suggests that we have much to learn about the consequences of education reform, especially school choice, and why it has not resulted in learning gains of the magnitude one might have predicted. This paper addresses these issues in two ways. First, we review the previous literature on the impact of choice in Chile, focusing on the effects on average student achievement and stratification. The reform was implemented nationwide, without an experimental design. Naturally, identifying its causal effect is very difficult and the literature has yet to reach a consensus in this area. To shed additional light on this debate, we present new evidence from a regression-discontinuity design that supports previous findings that school choice—at least as it has been implemented until now—has increased stratification while having little effect on average achievement. Second, we explore some factors that may explain why the evolution of school quality in Chile has been disappointing. We focus on the difficulties researchers have encountered in generating and interpreting information on school performance. Chile has been at the forefront of measuring, analyzing, and disseminating data on student achievement. Our research suggests three cautionary tales regarding such efforts. First, schools’ average test scores are a very good proxy for average student income in Chile, so they are of limited use to either parents or policymakers in terms of identifying especially effective or high value added schools. Second, commonsense approaches to control for parent and student characteristics—such as analyzing school gains between years—yield volatile school rankings. That is, assessments about whether a given school is “good” or “bad” can change substantially between years, misleading parents and policymakers. Third, the presence of test-score volatility complicates the evaluation of education programs that are assigned on the basis of test scores. We show how this volatility in test scores produced misleading estimates of the impact of one of Chile’s signature education programs in the early 1990s. [End Page 2] We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for current education policy in Chile. While we touch on multiple issues, we highlight three conclusions. First, over the past three decades, Chile’s school system has improved its users’ welfare along many dimensions. At the very least, choice is likely to have raised the welfare of some households by letting them attend schools of their preference. The evolution of aggregate learning outcomes has not been as satisfactory, however. Second, despite concerns regarding the use of test score information for accountability purposes, we argue that the Chilean government should continue to collect and improve the use of student performance data. Third, Chile would be..." @default.
- W2024252525 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2024252525 creator A5027867798 @default.
- W2024252525 creator A5028799065 @default.
- W2024252525 creator A5066437177 @default.
- W2024252525 date "2008-01-01" @default.
- W2024252525 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
- W2024252525 title "School Choice, Stratification, and Information on School Performance: Lessons from Chile" @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1486999830 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1533526037 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1557589429 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1565355790 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1597288547 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1632789548 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1730782591 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1898230234 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1967085127 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1970177148 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1980460444 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1992235940 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1995812332 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2017767800 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2035443751 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2044107507 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2045736296 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2049614379 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2053007581 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2053511614 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2067852100 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2076453587 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2079872858 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2086901914 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2100930256 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2102112353 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2106259654 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2107544761 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2108063916 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2117610596 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2129329807 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2132557528 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2138124312 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2139188343 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2146469537 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2151700862 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2162297205 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2162351031 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W222164757 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2364115855 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2771734165 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2782340430 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W283347610 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2886092528 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2890196818 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2956519447 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W2970489046 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3023242601 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3121461851 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3121471620 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3122654437 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3122775483 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3123009801 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3123095377 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3123604501 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3123686797 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3124133911 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W3125647229 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W349406471 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W89281811 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W995514819 @default.
- W2024252525 cites W1589203548 @default.
- W2024252525 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/eco.0.0003" @default.
- W2024252525 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
- W2024252525 type Work @default.
- W2024252525 sameAs 2024252525 @default.
- W2024252525 citedByCount "35" @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252012 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252013 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252014 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252015 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252016 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252017 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252019 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252021 @default.
- W2024252525 countsByYear W20242525252022 @default.
- W2024252525 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2024252525 hasAuthorship W2024252525A5027867798 @default.
- W2024252525 hasAuthorship W2024252525A5028799065 @default.
- W2024252525 hasAuthorship W2024252525A5066437177 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C105458232 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C127598652 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C199728807 @default.
- W2024252525 hasConcept C2778136243 @default.