Impact Evaluations of EDUCO: A Critical Review

  • D. Brent EdwardsJr.
Chapter

Abstract

Despite the excitement around the Education with Community Participation (EDUCO) program during the early 1990s as it was being scaled up, the Ministry of Education and the representatives of the World Bank knew that they would need solid evidence which demonstrated that the program produced beneficial outcomes in order (a) to continue to promote the program as a central policy for education reform in El Salvador and (b) to be able to credibly promote the program internationally as a best practice. It was in this context of excitement and determination that the World Bank began to carry out evaluations of EDUCO. With this in mind, this chapter critically reviews six key studies that were carried out between 1994 and 2005 by the World Bank on the EDUCO program. These six studies are included here for critical review because they represent each of the studies that were produced as impact evaluations, all of which were generated by the World Bank. They represent the entire body of “legitimate” and “policy-relevant” knowledge that was created in order to evaluate whether the program worked by identifying the effects of the EDUCO intervention.

Keywords

Impact evaluation Critical review Education with Community Participation EDUCO World Bank Critical review 

References

  1. Achenbach, J. (2015, August 27). May scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/
  2. Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H., & Santibánez, L. (2009). Decentralized decision-making in schools: The theory and evidence on school-based management. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  3. Berk, R. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48(3), 368–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bushway, S., Johnson, B., & Slocum, L. (2007). Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2018). The trajectory of global education policy: Community-based management in El Salvador and the global reform agenda. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards, D. B., Jr., & DeMatthews, D. (2014). Historical trends in educational decentralization in the United States and developing countries: A periodization and comparison in the post-WWII context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(40), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n40.2014.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, D. B., Jr., & Higa, S. (not yet published). The global education policy of school-based management in conflict-affected contexts: Current reach, prominent rationales, future research. Policy Futures in Education. Google Scholar
  8. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (1999). Do community-managed schools work? An evaluation of El Salvador’s EDUCO program. The World Bank Economic Review, 13(3), 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (2003). Does community management help keep kids in schools? Evidence using panel data from El Salvador’s EDUCO program. Discussion Paper, Center for International Research on the Japanese Economy. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
  11. Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (2014). Does community management help keep kids in schools? Evidence using panel data from El Salvador’s EDUCO program. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 62(2), 307–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahan, D. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424.Google Scholar
  13. Khandker, S., Kookwal, G., & Samad, H. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation Quantitative methods and practices. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  14. Klees, S., & Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2014). Knowledge production and technologies of governance. In T. Fenwick, E. Mangez, & J. Ozga (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2014: Governing knowledge: Comparison, knowledge-based technologies and expertise in the regulation of education (pp. 31–43). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Lindo Fuentes, H. (1998). Comunidad, participación y escuelas: EDUCO en El Salvador. [Community, participation and schools: EDUCO in El Salvador.]. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Mundy, K. (1998). Educational multilateralism and world (dis)order. Comparative Education Review, 42(4), 448–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sawada, Y. (2000). Community participation, teacher effort, and educational outcome: The case of El Salvador’s EDUCO program. Michigan: The William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan Business School.Google Scholar
  18. Sawada, Y., & Ragatz, A. (2005). Decentralization of Education, Teacher Behavior, and Outcomes: The Case of El Salvador’s EDUCO Program. In E. Vegas (Ed.), Incentive to improve teaching: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 255–306). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  19. Umanzor et al. (1997). El Salvador’s EDUCO program: A first report on parents’ participation in school-based management. Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms, No. 4. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  20. World Bank. (1994). El Salvador: Community education strategy: Decentralized school management. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Brent EdwardsJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations