Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building More Effective Education Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessing Contexts of Learning

Part of the book series: Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment ((MEMA))

  • 1667 Accesses

Abstract

The current focus on systemic reform in K-12 education in many countries around the globe began to develop in the early 2000s, in response to frustration with the low performance of some schools on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other international assessments, compared to those in high performing countries, and also in response to widening socioeconomic achievement gaps. Researchers have identified the lack of incentives and support systems as the main culprits, and systemic change as the solution. This chapter summarizes the literature on three systemic reform areas: market-based, accountability, and decentralization reforms. It reviews the constructs that ideally would be assessed, as well as their degree of coverage in the PISA 2015 trial. The chapter concludes by discussing some implications and directions for constructs in future PISA cycles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is also a large body of literature in education research that examines these topics. See, for example, Plank and Sykes (2003) on school choice and Ravitch (2010) on accountability and testing.

  2. 2.

    There is a burgeoning literature in the United States on the effects of changes in governance from traditional school boards to mayoral control, on student learning and other indicators (Bulkley 2013).

  3. 3.

    This section will also consider other system-level factors such as sub-national policies that are considered indirectly related to student learning (Creemers and Kyriakides 2015; Scheerens 2013).

References

  • Allen, R., & Burgess, S. (2012) How should we treat under-performing schools? A regression discontinuity analysis of school inspections in England, CMPO working paper no. 12/87 and DoQSS working paper no. 12/02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M. (2003). Control of education: Issues and tensions in centralization and decentralization. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkley, K. (2013). Review of mayoral governance and student achievement. Boulder: National Education Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christophe, M., Elacqua, G., Martinez, M., & Batista Araujo, J. (2015). Educação baseada em evidencias: Como saber o que funciona em educação [Evidence based education: How to know what works in education]. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Alfa e Beto

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2015). Developing, testing and using theoretical models of educational effectiveness for promoting quality in education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, J. B., & Reback, R. (2006). Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system (NBER Working paper no. 12286). http://www.nber.org/papers/w12286. Accessed 2 June 2016.

  • Elacqua, G. (2015). Chile: The quality of for-profit schooling. In S. Schwartzman (Ed.), Education in South America (pp. 221–248). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elacqua, G., & Santos, H. (2016). Policies that foster segregation: Vouchers and neighborhood assignment in Santiago. No 119 (pp. 133–148). Chile CEPAL Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elacqua, G., Iribarren, M., & Santos, H. (2016). School choice and private schooling in Latin America: Trends and policies. Education Commission Report Draft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elacqua, G., Martinez, M., Santos, H., & Urbina, D. (in press). The effects of accountability pressures on teacher policies and practices in low-performing schools: The case of Chile. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epple, D., Romano, R., & Urquiola, M. (forthcoming). School vouchers: A survey of the economics literature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. S. (2006). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system? In T. J. Gronberg & D. W. Jansen (Eds.), Improving school accountability (pp. 35–49). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Figlio, D. N., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Economics of education (pp. 383–421). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figlio, D. N., & Rouse, C. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90, 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flessa, J. J. (2012). Principals as middle managers: School leadership during the implementation of primary class size reduction policy in Ontario. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(3), 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershberg, A., Gonzalez, P., & Meade, B. (2012). Understanding and improving accountability in education: A conceptual framework and guideposts from three decentralization reform experiences in Latin America. World Development, 40(5), 1024–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2003). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. In E. Peterson & M. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of accountability (pp. 126–151). Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E., & Woessman, L. (2012). Schooling, educational achievement, and the Latin American growth puzzle. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 497–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoxby, C. (2000). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review, 90, 1209–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, C. T., & Urquiola, M. (2006). The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile’s school voucher program. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1477–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaimovich, A. (2016). Institutional architecture for school improvement. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. IDB-BR-148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jencks, C. (1970). Education vouchers: Giving parents money to pay for schooling. New Republic, 163(1), 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects and contributions of public, public charter, and religious schools on student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders’ actions on student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, H. M. (2001). Privatizing education: Can the marketplace deliver choice, efficiency, equity, and social cohesion? Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macleod, B., & Urquiola, M. (2013). Competition and educational productivity: Incentives writ large. In P. Glewwe (Ed.), Education policy in developing countries (pp. 243–284). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maslowski, R., Scheerens, J., & Luyten, H. (2007). The effect of school autonomy and school internal decentralization on students’ reading literacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 303–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizala, A., & Torche, F. (2013). ¿Logra la subvención escolar preferencial igualar los resultados educativos? [Does the weighted voucher the narrow achievement gap? please supply translation in square brackets here]. Espacio Público, Documento de referencia, 9. http://www.espaciopublico.cl/media/publicaciones/archivos/19.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

  • Musset, P. (2012). School choice and equity (OECD working paper 66). Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (2016). Educational effectiveness and inequalities in Chile: A multilevel accelerated longitudinal study of primary school children’s achievement trajectories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, Department of Education, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (2003). Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, L. (2015). Creating education systems coherent for learning outcomes: Making the transition from schooling to learning. Research on Improving Systems of Education, RISE WP-15/005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, D. (2010). The life and death of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • RISE. (2015). Conceptual framework. Research on Improving Systems of Education, RISE Working Draft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockoff, J., & Turner, L. (2010). Short-run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 119–147. doi:10.1257/pol.2.4.119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, C. E., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J. (2013). The use of theory in school effectiveness research revisited. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. (2001). Unintended consequences of test-based accountability when testing in “milepost” grades. Educational Assessment, 7, 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umansky, I., & Vegas, E. (2007). Inside decentralization: How three Central American school-based management reforms affect student learning through teacher incentives. World Bank Research Observer, 22(2), 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2016). School leadership, monitoring and evaluation and governance in the implementation of the Education 2030 Framework for Action. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002437/243704E.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, D. (2005). Understanding decentralization. Washington, DC: USAID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, D., & Gershberg, A. (2000). Education decentralization in Latin America: The effects on the quality of schooling. LCSHD paper series 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, D., & Gershberg, A. (2003). Education decentralization in Africa: A review of recent policy and practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, USA

    Gregory Elacqua

Authors
  1. Gregory Elacqua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory Elacqua .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Educational Quality and Evaluation, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF) , Schloßstraße 29 60486, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Susanne Kuger

  2. Department for Educational Quality and Evaluation Schloßstraße 29 60486, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF), Schloßstraße 29 60486, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Eckhard Klieme

  3. Department for Educational Quality and Evaluation, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF), Schloßstraße 29 60486, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Nina Jude

  4. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison , 1025 West Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    David Kaplan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Elacqua, G. (2016). Building More Effective Education Systems. In: Kuger, S., Klieme, E., Jude, N., Kaplan, D. (eds) Assessing Contexts of Learning. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45356-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45357-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation