You are on page 1of 43

for Assessment of Ouality i Education n

I RST INTERNATIONAL C O 1\11 PA RAT I E V STUDY
O language, f mathematics,and associated factors for students i the third n and fourth grade of primal'y KhQOl.
SECOND REPORT
AUTHORS THE REPORT: OF J U A N CASASSUS. S A N D R A CUSATO. J U A N ENRIQUE FROEMEL. J U A N CARLOS PALAFOX. SPECIALISTS RESPONSIBLE FORTHE ANALYSIS:

DOUGLASWILLMS EM A R I E AND A N N SOMMERS. DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION OFTHE UNIVERSITYOF NEW BRUNSWICK,CANADA.
CARLOS PARDO.INSTITUTOCOLOMBIANO DE FOMENTO DE LA EDUCACION SUPERIOR, ICFES.

UNESCO
Report prepared by the Latin American Laboratory f r Assessment o o Quality i Education. f n
f is Coordinator o the F r t Report: Juan Casassus,Regional Specialist i Educational Planning and Management n

UNESCO-SANTIAGO
Permanent Consulting Staff: (responsiblef r developing this report) o Sandra Cusato Juan Enrique Froemel Juan Carlos Palafox Analysts: Carlos Pardo Anne Marie Sommers Douglas Willms Contributors: María Inés Alvarez,National Assessment Coordinator (Chile);Asmara Anderson,General Special Projects Coordinator (Venezuela); Judith Barahona.General Director fr Assessment o the Q a i y o Education o f ult f (Honduras); Susana Barrera,Coordinator o the System f r the f o Measurementand Assessment o Quality i Education (Bolivia); f n Héctor Fernández,Specialist i School Organization (Colombia);María Inés n f Gómez de Sá Pestana,Assessment Director o Basic Education (Brazil); Marta iafuente, General Directoro Educational Development f (Paraguay); Leonte Ramírez,Director o National Testing (Dominican f Republic); Alejandra Schulmeyer.Consultant f r the NationalInstitute o o Education Research (Brazil);Héctor Valdés,Education System f Researcher,Central I s i u e o Pedagogical Sciences (Cuba);Lucrecia nttt f Tulic,National Director o Assessment (Argentina); f Julio Valeiron, Technical Director o National Testing (DominicanRepublic ),Victor f M.Velázquez,General Director o Assessment (México). f

Published by the Latin American Laboratory f r Assessment o Quality o f i Education,with the financial support o the Government o Spain. n f f

UNESCO-SANTIAGO
Regional Office o Education for Latin America and the Caribbean f Printed by Andros Ltda. Lay-out:Claudia O'Ryan Original:Spanish English Translation:William Gallagher

The opinionscontained i this Study are not necessarily those o n f UNESCO,nor do they i any way effect the responsibilities ofthe n organization.Geographic place-namesused i t i publication,and n hs the presentation o data herein do not express any opinion o f f UNESCO regarding the judicial status o cities,territories,o zones, f r o that o t e r authorities,nor i regard t the delimitation o borders. f f hi n o f

QUNESCO 2000
Santiago,Chile,June,2002.

UNESCO

PRE FACE INTRODUCTION IMPLICATIONS
OFT H E F I N D I N G S FOREDUCATIONAL

POLICIES

THE STUDY SUBJECT MATTERS TESTED MAJOR FINDINGS RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED OF FACTORS 3 SOCIO-CULTURAL STATUS(SCS) 2 O U T C O M E S FOR FACTORS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY EDUCATION POLICIES 2.1 ATTHECENTRAL ADMINISTRATIONE L O F T H E SYSTEM LEV 2.2 SCHOOLPRINCIPALS D SCHOOLM A N A G E M E N T AN 2.3 WITHIN-CLASSROOM TEACHER RELATED FACTORS STUDENT~TEACHER RATIO INITIAL A N D IN-SERVICETEACH R TRAIN G E IN TEACHR EXPERIENCE E TEACHER ATTITUDES, OPINIONS,WORKING AND CONDITIONS PERCEIVED TEACHERS CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS CLASSROOM STRATEGIES 2.4 THED O M A I NOF STUDENTS A N D T H E I R A M I L Y F CONTEXTS 3 ACHIEVEMENT STRATAA N D ADJUSTMENTVARIABLES BY
C ~ M P L E M E N T A ANALYSIS STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RY OF

2
.I*

1 2

ANALYSIS TOPIC BY ANALYSIS ACHIEVEMENT BY LEVELS 2.1 PERFORMANCE LEVELS IN LANGUAGE 2 2 PERFROMANCE LEVELS IN MATHEMATICS 3 REGIONALOUTCOMES BY DEMOGRAPHIC STRATA T REGIONALOUTCOMES A N D PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN PUBLIC RESEARCH

i i

IS F
2% Jh
iia

{i
I -

CONCLUSIONS A N D IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE

.. **

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDIX RELATIONBETWEEN SCHOOL O U T C O M E S A N D GENDER, GRADE,A N D SOCIO-CULTURAL STATUS 1. APPENDIX DESCRIPTION VARIABLES 2. OF THE

ir 4

e

fi

I 1998,UNESCO'sLatin American Laboratory f r the Assessment o Quality i Education published the F r t n o f n is Comparative Study o Language,Mathematics,and Associated Factors f r Students i the Third and Fourth Grade f o n o Primary School.That Study presented f r the frt time a comparative glance o educationalachievement i countries f o is f n which have many cultural elements i common.This i an importantsubject,since during the 199Os, n s education became the major public policy issue i Latin America. n This Second Report points toward other aspects o education i Latin America.How may we characterizestudent f n achievement i the region? How can the quality o education be improved? How can it be made more pertinent t n f o the needs o the population? How can education improve the future prospects o millions o students? These are some f f f o the questions addressed i t i report through the study o factors associated wt academic achievement. f n hs f ih First,the Study sounds an alert. For it shows that average achievement o students i the region,i terms o what f n n f they should learn i Language and Mathematics,i low.But besides serving as an alert,this report seeks t provide n s o information on how t improve the current state o education.In so doing,it points i a number o directions.Much o f n f can be done.Nevertheless,the major challenge i how t learn t manage sets o factors that operate i synergy wt s o o f n ih one another. The Study also highlights UNESCO'simportant role as a forum f r the exchange o ideas,and as a facilitatori the o f n common tasks faced by nations. To carry out this Study,thirteen countries and hundreds o researchers joined forces f t produce more and better information. o The results o t i effort demonstrate how research can produce more solid f hs and well-basedinterpretations o what can be done t improve the quality o schools i the region.It i our hope that f o f n s it wl become a useful t o i encouraging dialogue and i developing new educational policies. i l ol n n

Ana Luiza Machado
Director of the Regional Office of Education for Latin American and the Caribbean

I order t provide useful information f r the formulation and execution o educational policy o countries i the region, n o o f f n i 1997 the Latin American Laboratory f r the Assessment o Quality i Education - LLECE - carried out the F r t n o f n is International ComparativeStudy i Language,Mathematics,and Associated Factors i the Third and Fourth Grades n n o Primary Education. The Laboratory,coordinated by the UNESCO Regional Office o Education f r Latin America f f o and the Caribbean,brings together i a network various national systems f r the measurement and assessment o the n o f quality o education. f

A total o thirteen countriesparticipated i the Study. The target population was al boys and girls enrolled in the third f n l
and fourth grades o primary schools i Argentina,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Costa Rica,Cuba,Honduras,Mexico, f n r Paraguay,Peru,the Dominican Republic,and Venezuela,as well as their parents o guardians,teachers,school principals, and the schools themselves. I 1996, t t l population enrolled i both grades within these countries was 19,490, n the o a n 590 students. The sample taken from this universe was approximately 55,000- a number considered t be s a i t c l y o ttsial appropriate. The frt results published a the end o 1998 provided some indications o a clear situation o low outcomes i terms is t f f f n o achievement,and made manifest the importance o giving p i r t t a systematic policy aimed a raising the academic f f roiy o t achievement o students i the region. These and other conclusions o the Study made it possible t take the pulse f n f o o the education situation o more than sixty-fourmillion children who make up the universe o the primary school f f f population i Latin America. n The most significantfinding was the dispersion of results between countries;s much s that they were divided into o o three groups: the f r t consisting o one country that obtained scores f r superior t the others;the other two groups is, f a o had closer results,wt generally low achievement levels. Moreover,besides comparisonsbetween countries,the ih Study,from its inception was intended t carry out a more exhaustive analysis o outcomes i order t identify factors o f n o that could explain them. Together wt the tests i Language and Mathematics,a questionnaire was administered t students,parents and ih n o guardians,teachers,and school principals i order t collect more information regarding factors associated wt n o ih achievement levels. Al o t i information comprises a valuable data base that allows both countries and the region l f hs as a whole t investigate the effect o a large number o school achievement variables. o f f This document contains the essential aspects o the Technical Report,which wl be soon be made available t the f i l o general public. In that report,outcomes are detailed and interpreted through analyses o achievement levels i Language f n and Mathematics and the findings on the different factors that explain achievement. This Second Report focuses on discussion o implicationsf r and recommendationsregarding educational policies. f o

Al o this background material substantiates the importance o the report,since it wl allow decision-makerst have l f f i l o
access t information that offers support and guidance f r processes directed a focussing and making rational use of o o t resources, t move toward strategiesthat foster greater quality and equity i education. While it i true that the and o n s outcomes o the Study confirmmany o the major concepts that have guided decision-makingi recent years,it i also f f n s true that they modify others. This i very important f r correcting certain viewpoints that have been current i education s o n policy. The in-depth analysis o outcomes i Language and Mathematics can contribute t the design,o re-design,f curricular f n o r o programs,t instrumentation and focus o resource allocation strategies,and t establishing quality standards from the o f o perspective o concrete results o a representative sample o students within the region. The Study o associated factors, f f f f f r is part,makes possible the development o a suggested Latin American model f r effective schools. o t f o The l t e i highly significantbecause it shows that crucial variables exist that compensate f r the possible negative atr s o effect o adverse social-economic socio-culturalconditions,and that despite coming from unfavorable contexts, f and studentscan achieve good results. Such conditions point toward the culture,attitudes,practices,and inter-relationships between teachers,students,administrators, other actors within the school community. A good part o the variance and f i the outcomes - the measure o v r a i i y - i explained by factors linked to the school. This opens up Significant n f aiblt s opportunitiest apply low-costeducational policies that can modify the present situation and substantially improve o student achievement. Social differences i Latin America are widening,while a the same time equity has become an ongoing objective of n t social policy. This Study allows us t conclude that i Latin America,contrary t what has been argued by some o n o specialists, schools do make a difference and can compensate f r the effects o t i lack o socialjustice. o f hs f Furthermore,it i important t note that increased budgets alone do not necessarily imply achieving better education. s o The Study demonstratesthat although budgetary resources have an impact,they are not sufficient i and by themselves. n Current Latin American experience shows that effective schools do not require enormous investmentsi resources; n they require,rather,the efficient and cumulative inter-relationo a number o variables that are examined i detail i f f n n this Study. Finally,it should be noted that although the most modern and universally-recognized methodologies and procedures have been used i design,procedures,and data analysis,the Study possesses the limitation inherent t quantitative n o research o this kind -the application o instrumentsbased on pencil and paper exams,using multiple choice questions f f wt only one v l d response;exams that were self-appliedand administered t diverse populations distributed over a ih ai o wide geographic area.

I accordance wt the purpose o t i report,i terms o n ih f hs n f being more an explanatory than a comparativet o o the ol f results o the F r t InternationalStudy,the present section f is - which deals wt repercussions o the findings f r ih f o educational policies - presents an i i i l explanation of nta outcomes i the region. n

A number o implicationsf r educational policies arise f o
from a general analysis o the Study. These may be f summarized as follows:

It i essential that a much greater effort be made i order s n t improve learning i Language and Mathematics. Special o n emphasis should be placed on raising learning levels i n Language,since low achievement i t i area affects other n hs kinds o learning and for the futurep s i i i i s o students f osblte f within the educational system. If things remain as they are,countrieswithin the region wl be poorly prepared t i l o meet the challenges presented by the new information and knowledge society within a context o globalization. f
The Study has made it possible t affirm what other o research has detected as well: factors outside the school influencewhat happens within the classroom. However, f ih the set o factors associated wt schools explains more than two-thirdso the variation i outcomes between f n schools. This demonstratesthat,although factors outside the school have an impact on achievement,effective teaching leads t successful learning processes. o The lack o equity may arise fromthe environment within f which schoolsoperate. Differencesi achievementbetween n schools are l s than that observed i the Socio-Cultural es n Index (SCS),t is four indicators o family context. wh t i f Actually,what schools i the region do i compensate f r n s o inequalities. They thus have the potential t alleviate the o effects o social inequalities. f

The Study makes it clear that a good education system, o a good school,need not be especially expensive. Among r those schools studied,there are some that operate under unfavorable conditions.Yet compared t others o a higher o f socio-culturallevel,they achieve remarkable results. The way that different actors inter-relatewithin a school i a subject that deserves greater study,since a good part s o student outcomes depend on the quality o such links. f f Interventionshould be directed a those factorsthat generate t a micro-climate favorable t learning i the classroom ( n o n i which students do not fight,do not interfere wt each ih another,and among whom a climate o friendshipexists) f i order t improve the quality o education.ITSHOULDB E n o f
N O T E D THAT EMOTIONAL FACTORS, OF W H I C H THIS FACTOR IS A PART, ARE MORE C O M P L E X T H A N THOSE RELATED TO INVESTMENT IN IMPACT O N ACHIEVEMENT IS MATERIAL INPUTS. THEREFORE,THEIR MORE UNCERTAIN,AND M A Y REQUIRE MORE TIME FOR INSTRUMENTATION.

The differences observed between the outcomes o f demographic and administrative strata obey factors associated with familiesand school processes,and not the strata per se. This means that those children whose parents have similar educationl v l and who attend schools sharing ees similarprocessesalso have similaroutcomes. The difference does not le i whether a school i rural o urban;nor i i n s r n whether it i public o private. It lies,rather,i other s r n factors, some o which may be modified through appropriate f policies. In improving the quality o education,more f attention should be paid t what happens i education o n processes and t the characteristics that differentiate schools o within each strata,rather than the characteristicso the f strata themselves.

The following sections are intended t support the o aforementioned repercussions,both i terms o the n f constituent characteristicso the Study,as well as the f results o the analysis o Associated Factors.A country f f analysis by Language and Mathematics topics has been added that i a complementt the regional overview,but s o which looks this time within each country.Finally,w e present an analysis o both Language and Mathematics f by strata and achievement levels a the regional level. t

It has been noted that the Study provides value judgements i order t suggesta model o effectiueschools,understood n o f as those which achieve what i expected o them;that is, s f that their students learn. Based on the resultso the Study, f it appears that the profile of such an ideal school one i n whichl:
The library has instructionalmaterial and books o f sufficient quantity and quality. The iiil training o teachers has taken place a t r nta f fe their secondary schooling;the teachers f e that their el pay i adequate,and they teach exclusively i this school. s n Teachers believe that the positive results o failure of r their students depend largely on the students themselves. There i a formal student achievement assessment s practice i place. n Heterogeneity i encouraged. s Studentsare not grouped according t a single standard. o Attemptsare made t provide a classroom atmosphere o that favors mutual respect and harmony between students. Parents are involved i the activitieso the school n f community.
1

THEE L E M E N T S PRESENTED NT H I SP R O F I LA R E LISTED NT H E O R D E RI NW H I C H THEY A R E I E I ANALYZED IN CHAPTER 111: RESULTSOF THE ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATED FACTORS,AND NOT IN
TERMS OFTHEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE.

Between June and November,1997,third and fourth grade primary school students i 13 countries were tested n i Language (54,589 n students)and Mathematics (54,417 students). Questionnaires designed t obtain information o on learning conditions were administered t 48,688 o students,41,088 parents and guardians,3,675 teachers, and 1,387 school principals i 1,509 n schools. The size o the samples were similar i each country,with f n about 1 0schools selected i each,and wt 20 students 0 n ih a each grade level. The sampling process was adjusted t t current internationalstandards. Most o the countries o f complied with the general guidelineso the corresponding f manual,wt only two o them introducing changes into ih f the agreed-uponprocedure2, always within acceptable but standards f r this kind o study. o f The sample was demographically and administratively stratified. The frt criterion made it possible t distinguish is o schools located i large c t e (morethan 1 million n iis inhabitants), urban areas ( i i swt more than 2,500 c t e ih and less than one million inhabitants)and rural areas (locales o 2,500 f inhabitants or l s ) The second criterion es. distinguished between publicly-managed (federal, state,o r municipal) and private schools i large c t e and urban n iis areas,without Considering the source o resources o the f f lte. atr f o The basic purpose o the Study was t provide useful information fr the formulationand execution o educational o f policies within countries o the region. Three central f issues were constantly present:

H The Study coincides with the interest i many countries n
to: give priority t the development o education; o f move ahead wt educational reform processes; ih effect profound changes i management,objectives, n content,s i l ,and methodologies o teaching;and kls f improve physical infrastructureand support materials used i schools,with strong emphasis on the quality n o education offered and the equity o is distribution. f ft The results o the Study,together wt other educational f ih indicators,i make it possible f r authoritiescharged with wl l o the design and implementationof educational policies t o have available a broad and documented view o the factors f that most influencethe quality o education i their countries, f n as well as t access database information that can be used o i future studies on the impact o educationalreforms. n f

I Only a few countries in the region have participated
i previous comparative measurements o the quality n f o education.When they have,consideration has not f been given t their curricular and cultural roots. o I recent years,several Latin American countries have n put i place national education quality assessment n systems,t which the present Study can supply o comparative and reference information on common curricular issues.

2

ARGENTINA UTILIZEDA PREVIOUSLYSELECTED SAMPLE FOR ITS NATIONAL SURVEY. BRAZIL.
DUE TO ITS GREAT DISPERSION,PRE-SELECTEDTHREE5TATES.AND WITHIN EACH O F T H E M THREE MUNICIPALITIESWITH HIGH,MIDDLE,AND L O W RATES B A S E D O N T H E UNITED

NATIONS U M A N DEVELOPMENT MEXICO DEFINEDAS"RURAL"TH0SE H INDEX.
OF U P T O 5,000INHABITANTS.

POPULATIONS

SUBJECT MATTERS TESTED

Study areas

The Study included two basic subjects - Language and Mathematics - as indicators o the quality o education i f f n each country.With Language,students construct and develop knowledge and learning,giving meaning t their o experiences and sense t the knowledge o others,as well o f as building the basis for development o the a i i y t reason f blt o and opening the doors o access t knowledgeand c i i a f o rtcl thinking.Mathematics aids i organizing the bases f r n o logical reasoning, develops the capacity t solve problems, o and lends rigor t the analysis o data. o f After analyzing and identifying curricular elements that define the educational process o studentswithin the region, f f v topics i Language and another f v i Mathematics ie n ie n were chosen,t be used as a basis f r constructing the o o instrumentsand f r subsequentinterpretation o the results. o f These were:
LANGUAGE: Identifymgtypes o texts; f distinguishingbetween

STUDENT FAMILY CONTEXT

1

TEACHER EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

COMMITMENTS, HABIT5,AND SKILLS

i I

i

CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGICAL MANAGEMENT

INSTITUTIONAL MANAG EMENT

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT

the transmitter and the recipient o a text;identifying the f message i a text;recognizing specific information within n a text,and identifying vocabulary related t the meaning o o a text. f

P R I NC I PAL

i 1 I
1

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

W h due regard fr the complexity o educational processes i t o f
and their close links t economic and social development, o a basic model was defined that integrates four different factors that influence learning:

MATHEMATICS: Numbering,operations wt natural ih numbers;common fractions; geometry and sil (thel t e kls atr understood as the a i i y t read graphs,recognize trends, blt o have a notion o probabilities,and discern relationsamong f given data).
Studentachievementi the various topics, was analyzed n and ih i each country,and was also contrasted wt their n achievement i the t s as a whole.This made it possible n et t produce a performance profile f r each country that o o expresses the relative mastery that their students have o f the different topics. The r s l s o both t s s are expressed on an ad hoc (Rasch eut f et Model)Scale,wt a Mean Score o 250 points and a ih f Standard Deviation o 50 points. f

1) STUDENTSA N D T H E I R A M I L Y F CONTEXTS (characteristics, commitment, habits,and sil o students and o their kls f f immediate families); 2) TEACHERSN D THE EDUCATIONAL DOMAIN (CUrriCUlUm A and teaching management variablesu i i e by teachers tlzd i the classroom); n

3) PRINCIPALS D T H E SCHOOLMICROCOSM AN (variablesupon
which i s i u i n l management processeso the school ntttoa f are supported);

4) PUBLIC AUTHORITIESN D THE MACROCOSM(aspects A
related t public management o institutions a the o f t national l v l . ee)

MAJOR FINDINGS

The most significantfindings o the Study may be f summarized as follows: Cuban students achieved the highest scores i Language n and Mathematics,and take less time t complete a grade o (AdvancementRate).This i the case i al o their schools. s nl f Differences i achievement for t i country,i terms o n hs n f gender and socio-culturallevels,are also reduced.The relationship between high scores i the two subjects and n advancement rates also occurs i other countries. n

“School-relatedfactors”- input and processes - are responsiblef r nearly two-thirdso the variation i student o f n achievement outcomes.This finding warrants the need fr o the study and development o policies aimed a changing f t the present situation and improving achievement. There are differences i outcomes between schools, n according t the strata t which they belong.But these o o disappear and,i some cases,reverse their direction,if n an analysis i carried out controlling f r family history s o variables and,even more so,when t such control we add o education process variables.Thus,the importance o the f family i studentachievement becomes evident.Even more n evident are school-relatedfactors which,i some cases, n even neutralize o compensate f r the negative effects o r o f other variables. Rural schools i Colombia had higher than expected n f n outcomes that were above those o the urban schools i that country.This indicates that,even i unfavorable n contexts,the application o appropriate and consistent f measures (“EscuelaNueva”)can significantly improve student outcomes. Urban schools i Chile show better outcomes than those n i large metropolitan areas.This may be due t the effect n o o the regionalization model put into practice i that f n country.

With the aforementioned exception,achievement levels
i Language i the region are quite low. Most students n n have only a fragmentary understanding o the texts that f they read.They recognize the words o a text,but are not f able to determine why they say what they do,o f r what r o purpose they are said. THIS INDICATE I NTHE R E G I O N , MAY THAT
STUDENTS ARE T A U G H T TO DECODE; THAT IS,TO TRANSLATE WRITTEN W O R D S INTO ORAL LANGAUGE, BUT W I T H O U T U N D E R S T A N D I N G THE M E A N I N G OF THE TEXT. NOR D O T H E Y INTERPRET THAT W H I C H THEY READ.THEY LEARN TO READ ALOUD, OR TO “ENUNCIATE”TEXTS,BUT THEY D O N O T LEARN T H R O U G H READING.

Outcomes f r Mathematics,with the exception noted o above for the case o Cuba,were generally even lower and f more unequal.STUDENTS DO NOT ASSIMILATE N O W L E D G E , N O R K
D O T H E Y DEVELOPSKILLS INTHE SUBJECT.THEY RECOGNIZE S I G N S A N D STRUCTURES,BUT HAVE LITTLE ABILITY TO RESOLVE SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS E N C O U N T E R E D IN DAILY LIFE.

A last finding points toward the importance o schools f
themselvesand t what happens within them.One o the o f most important findings o the Study i that student f s perception o a favorable classroom environment has more f influenceon learning than the combined effect o al the fl other factors.

Gender differences follow a pattern similar t that noted o above for the case o Cuba,being significant only i some f n cases.Girls show better achievement i Language and n s i h l poorer achievement i Mathematics. lgty n Although there are similarities between countries,there are complex differences as well. The way that different variables have an impact on school performance i each n county deserves detailed study,inasmuch as their behavior i not consistenti al countries. The fact i that,as we s nl s s a l see i d t i for the selected variables below,f r some hl n eal o countries such relations are positive,and for others they are negative.

The Study included the analysisthose factors that have an influence one way o another upon student learning i r n Language and Mathematics.The application o f questionnaires t students, o parents and guardians,teachers, principals,as well as the collection o information on the f schools themselves provided a wealth o data that wl f i l make it possible f r each country,and f r the region, t o o o work i the future toward intensifying research on the n effects o these different pedagogical,economic,social, f and cultural factors- t examine the interrelationsand/or o synergy that can take place between them. o n hs The variables t be presented i t i chapter have been chosen according t two categories.First,w e wl l o a o i ok t l those that had a s a i t c l y significanteffect on student ttsial scores;second,we wl examine those that,i spite o not i l n f demonstrating a significanteffect i the Study,have n conceptual relevance that merits our attention. I addition,i order t c a i y understanding o the incidence n n o lrf f 3 the variables considered i t i Study,independent o f n hs f stlident Socio-CulturalStatus (SCS), s a i t c l analysis the t t s i a presents the difference o scores on each variable f r a f o hypothetical group o students that corresponds t the f o M e m value o SCS i the region. f n

1. SOCIO-CULTURAL STATUS (SCS;)

The -9 variations i achievement i Language and n n
Mathematics i regard t the variables included i the n o n analytic model o the Study wl be described i the following f i l n sectims o t i chapter,and may be found i detail i the f hs n n table included i A P P E N D I1Xo t i document. Analytic n f hs f f descriptionso each o the variables considered are included i A P P E N D I2 n X .

I order t study the incidence o variables related t the n o f o family contexts o students,a scale was created called f “Socio-Cultural Status”. This index consists o four f variables: 1) educational level o parents;2 number o f ) f hours that parents are a home during working days;3 t ) reading resourcesavailable i the household,and 4 structure n ) o the core family (whetherit i o i not composed o two f s rs f parents,irregardless o marital status). f t The SCS index and is analysisusing collected information shows that t i variable changeswithin each school and hs between schools f r each country. A frt take on o is achievement gradients i Language and Mathematics n shows that an increase i the Mean value o the schooling n f o parents (estimatedt be 9.3 f o years i the Study)results n i an increase i the achievement o their children. This n n f i even more evident as the heterogeneity i levels o s n f schooling o the countries increases. f

2.OUTCOMES FOR FACTORS SUBJECT TO
MODIFICATION BY EDUCATION POLICIES
21 .

At the CentralAdministrationLevel of the System

The Study shows that within the region i general,those n studentswt exposure t pre-schooleducation show ih o s i h l better subsequent academic achievementthan those lgty studentswho have not had such experience.This i most s evident i the case o Language achievement. n f This fact notwithstanding, i important t remember that it s o such behavior was not s a i t c l y significantacross the ttsial entire region,that there i no uniformity i these outcomes s n when the analysis i done by country,and that the data s f r t i variable were very often invalid.For this reason, o hs it i advisable that in-countryanalyses should be intensified s i the future. n

Comparison o the outcomes o the Study wt similar f f ih ones i developed countries showsthat learningachievement n i the thirteen countries (and, extension,i Latin n by n America) i - wt the exception o one country - quite s ih f low.This finding reveals the disheartening situation o our f countries within the international context;one which demands the formulation o educationalpolicies that assure f classroom learning and which raise the academic achievement o future generations. f These new educational policies,as we shall see below,do not necessarily involve more o l s spending per student; r es nor do they imply questioning the need for investing i n education.It i not so much a question o the volume o s f f resources,but rather o the effectiveness o measures f f many o low cost - that can guarantee quality within the f learning and teaching process. Independent o the outcomes o t i Study,it should be f f hs noted within t i domain that i the different educational hs n systems analyzed,reforms are being carried out - highly productive innovative experiences and traditional practices that produce better outcomes.It i f r t i reason that the s o hs exchange o knowledgebetween countries i a key element f s f r progress i the region. o n

22 .

School principals and school management

Student academic achievement i multivariate. What s happens within schools, ih their multiple variables,i wt s very important fr learning. Knowing their influence on o school achievement allows us t act upon them and o when appropriate - modify them through educational policy decisions.
FIGURE 2
SCORE DIFFERENCES AS A FUNCTION

O VARIABLES RELATED T O SCHOOL RESOURCES F
LANGUAGE MATHEMATICS

1. 04

10
8

6 4
2

O
INFRASTRUCTURE TEACHING MATERIALS

SIZE OF LIBRARY (> 1,000BOOKS)

FIGURES IN BOLDTYPE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ATTHE . 5 LEVEL 0%

The Study assessed school resources i terms o the n f availability o basic teaching materials (black boards, f calculators,maps,and others),and found that a the t regional level,an increase o an item i the number o f n f such materiais i associated wt an almost two point s ih increase i the Language test.Thus,an increase o f v n f ie items would imply an approximate increase o ten points f on the same test.The magnitude o the relationship i f n o n s regard t achievement i Mathematics i lower.

o f n This variable i also related t the availability o books i s school libraries.W e note that schools w t libraries that ih have a l a t one thousand books are more associated with t es those that have higher achievement scores than those schools that have small libraries.It seems reasonable that children who have the support o materials and access t f o libraries learn more than those children who do not.

2.3

Within-classroomteacher related factors

STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO

Beyond intuitive approaches i regard t the subject,the n o outcomes o the present Study agree wt the general trend f ih revealed i other research,which point out that i terms n n o achievement,a larger number o studentsper classroom f f has a negative,but quite small effect.
INITIAL A N D IN-SERVICETEACHER TRAINING

W e see from the Study that there i a positive relationship s between post-secondarytraining o teachers and student f

achievement.O n the other hand,if we observe the variable “in-service teacher training”(understoodas that which takes place after i i i i training has been completed),is nta t influence on achievement,even when positive,i not s s a i t c l y significant. For each additional year o postttsial f secondary teacher training,students increase their scores by 2.44 points i Language and 2.06 n points i Mathematics. n This means that those studentswhose teachers possess four years o post-secondarytraining achieve between 4 f and 5 points more than those students whose teachers f have had only two years o similar training.

FIGURE 3
VARIATIONS IN SCORES AS A FUNCTION OF CLASSROOM-ASSOCIATEDVARIABLES A N D TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

7,s
2
1,5

MATHEMATICS

1

0s
0

-0.5
-1

c

-0,49

-0.53

TEACH E RI STUDENT RATIO

TEACHER EXPERIENCE

TEACHER EDUCATION

IN-SERVICETEACHER TRAINING

FIGURES IN BOLDTYPE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ATTHE

.05% LEVEL

TEACHER X P E R I E N C E E
For its part,the Study did not detect the influence o f teacher experience on student performance,being s i h l lgty positive fr both Language and Mathematics.I t i sense, o n hs it would seem necessary to revise the weight assigned to the factor o experience i the design o teacher promotion f n f systems,i view o the fact that years o service have a n f f strong influenceon teacher salary increases and promotions.

As was stated,results o the research show that the f education o teachers i an important issue t consider. f s o Therefore,one could require that al teachers have a l a t l t es a fl secondaryeducation,i view o the increase i student ul n f n achievement related t one o more years o post-secondary o r f teacher education.

TEACHER ATTITUDES, OPINIONS,A N D W O R K I N G CONDITIONS
When teachers perceive that their pay i adequate f r the s o work they perform,their performance r s l s i an increase eut n o between eight and ten points i their students' f n achievement. The contrary i the case when teachers s perform additional work i order t enhance their incomes. n o Those students whose teachers are i such a situation n obtained a Mean Score o ten points less i achievement f n compared t those who have a full-timeteacher. o

FIGURE 4
VARIATIONS IN SCORES AS A FUNCTION OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH TEACHER ATTITUDES A N D OPINIONS LANGUAGE MATHEMATICS

5

O

-5

-10

-15

L
, ADEQUATE SALARY
LITrLE A U T O N O M Y

~ T E A C H EW H O P E R F O R M R OTHER WORK

F I G U R E S NBOLDTYPEA R E STATISTICALLYI G N I F I C A N T I S ATTHE .05% LEVEL

The fact o teachers not being able t carry out their f o professional a t v t e wt autonomy i order t determine c i i i s ih n o the best strategieswith which t deal with every-day o classroom situationsnegatively (althoughnot significantly) affects student achievement. Autonomy,i this case,i n s taken as the Mean value o four dichotomous variables: f whether the teacher feels free t cary out his o her o r

functions;whether he o she participates i work-related r n decisions;whether the teacher has a role i the selection n o texts and i the selection o audio-visualmaterials t f n f o be used.Moreover,if lack o autonomy i combined wt f s ih the fact that teachers are not satisfied wt their salaries, ih and that they hold other jobs,this combination i related s t a 27-pointdecrease i student achievement. o n

PERCEIVED TEACHER CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS
Based upon their experiences,teachers offer reasons t o j s i y success o failure i achievements o their students. utf r n f I the Study,seven o these reasons are considered:family n f support,s i l o the studentsthemselves,self-esteem, kls f the school environment,school resources,teaching methods, and teacher expectations.
FIGURE 5
SCORE VARIATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED T O CAUSES OF OUTCOMES AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHER

30

r

LANGUAGE

MATHEMATICS

-*O -30

t
FAMILY SUPPORT STUDENT SELF-ESTEEM

I
-22,3
SCHOOL RESOURCES TEACHING M E T H O D S TEACHER EXPECTATIONS

USTUDENTSCHOOL CLIMATE SKILLS

F I G U R E S N BOLDTYPEA R E STATISTICALLY I G N I F I C A N T T H E .05% LEVEL I S A

Teachers also attribute great importance t student s i l o kls (intelligence, aptitude,creativity,disposition). Both f r o Language and f r Mathematics,the outcomeso the Study o f show that student achievement scores are nearly 21 points higher when teachers feel that these outcomes are due t o the a i i i s o their students. Nevertheless,it i important blte f s t stress that similarly,teachers attribute the outcomes o o f their students t their own teaching methods. When the o l t e occurs,student achievement i also higher. This i atr s n isl c l s f r a change i mentality and f r professional tef a l o n o practices i which teachers assume a greater share o n f responsibility f r the effect o their activity. o f

Students who achieved better academic performance have as teachers individualswho do not attribute poor student performance t “family conditions”.O n the contrary, o studentswhose teachers believe that success o failure i r s not their responsibility, rather that o their students’ but f families have t s scores 10 t 22 points below those o et o f other students.

CLASSROOMSTRATEGIES
The Study found that the existence o a f r a assessment f oml system o studentwork has positive effects on achievement. f Those who attend schoolsi which teacherssystematically n control learning obtain outcomes between 4.5 5.5 and points above those who do not receive ongoing assessment. This c l s fr strategiesthat foster an assessment culture, al o either i i i i l teacher training courses o as a part o inn nta r f service training - communicating t teachers the evidence o found i t i and i other similar studies. n hs n

Nevertheless,o al the variables studied,that which has fl the largest impacton achievementi that i which,according s n t student perceptions,there i a favorable learning o s environment i the classroom. Students i classroomsi n n n which they lv together i harmony,do not quarrel among ie n themselves,and i which they establish good friendships, n attain between 92and 115 points more than students i n classroomswhere such a climate does not exist. This i s linked t other a i i i s o attitudes required by teaching o blte r that can condition the transmission o knowledge and the f development o student s i l . f kls
FIGURE 6

SCORE VARIATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED W I T H CLASSROOM STRATEGIES LANGUAGE MATHEMATICS
115.03

120 100

p

-

92.07

80 60 40
20

MULTI-GRADE GROUPS SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT STUDENTS GROUPED BY AB I LITY ICLASSROOM CLIMATE

O
-20
F I G U R E S NBOLDTYPEA R E STATISTICALLY I G N I F I C A N T T H E .05% LEVEL I S AT

Although i a limited way,the Study also treated the effect n ofthe practice ofgrouping studentsaccordingt a particdar o educational o Socio-culturalvariable. Such variables can r be levels ofprevious achievement, gender,orcultural or ethnic characteristics. Here,however,only the frt o t i is f h s ls was considered. In those schools i which students it n are grouped according t their achievement,studentshave o nearly 11 points less than i those schools i which such n n grouping does not occur. A logical suggestion i t take s o advantage o the diversity that exists i each classroom, f n given the fact that the greater the heterogeneity,the better the achievement.

THE COMBINED EFFECTOFFORMAL ASSESSMENT A N D NON-GROUPING O STUDENTS ACCORDING TO SOME EDUCATIONAL OR SOCIO-CULTURAL F F VARIABLE,O N THE ONE HAND, A N D THE ACHIEVEMENT O A POSITIVE CLASSROOM CLIMATE O N THE OTHER,RESULTS IN INCREASES O 108 A N D F 131 POINTS MORE IN LANGUAGE A N D MATHEMATICS, RESPECTIVELY. THIS, S TOGETHER,I THE MOST IMPORTANTVARIATION REVEALED BY THE STUDY.

2.4.

The domain of students and theirfamily context

The influence o the a t v t e o parents on the achievement f ciiis f o their children i unquestionable.The Study shows,f r f s o example,that if parents read t their children,their o achievementincreasesby between 3 and 6 points,especially i Language.The a a l b l t a home o ten o more books n viaiiy t f r that students may consult i a factor associated wt s ih increases i Language scores (4.55) s i h l more i n and l g t y n Mathematics (5.23). combined effect o reading The f frequently t ones’children and having books available a o t home i another powerful way t improve achievement s o i school. n
VARIATIONS IN SCORES AS A FUNCTION OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE D O M A I N STUDENTS

FIGURE 7

25
20

r

LANGUAGE

MATHEMATICS

15

1 0

5 O

EDUCATION OF PARENTS GRADUATED F R O M lZTHGRADE AT H O M E 3-4HOURS

PARENTS

I I N V O L V E D PARENTS

BOOKS
P A R E N T S O R G U A R D I A N S PARENTS H E L P =INVOLVED PARENTS READ OFTEN WITH HOMEWORK (SCHOOLLEVEL)

FIGURES IN BOLDTYPE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ATTHE

.05% LEVEL

Parents helping their children wt their homework ih apparently has a negative effect on achievement. This i open t varying interpretations, s o from supposing that greater help from parents i a consequenceo poor student s f achievement,t the contrary that l w achievement i a o o s result o the lack o pedagogical sil o parents,which f f kl f s can i turn confuse the student. A different case i that n ih i which parents are actively associated wt school n n s activities. i such cases,there i a noteworthy increase i student achievement. n

3. A C H I E V E M E N T BY STRATA A N D T H E ADJUSTMENT VARIABLES One of the frt findings o the Study was that o the is f f differencesi Mean scores by strata. If, however,these n are considered fr a population group with schoolinglevels o o parents o guardiansand other family background factors f r equal t the regional Mean Score,the strata differences o tend t diminish. If, moreover,one looks a a group o o t f students with school processes equal t the regional Mean o Score,the strata differences i scores not only disappear, n but tend t be reversed. o
FIGURE 8

The above,i depicted i the following graph.It shows s n differences i average scores between strata,taking the n Rural Stratum as the reference ( i ha value o O)and wt f including the variations f r the other strata,using three o different models of analysis.The frt o those models is f incorporates the original observed differences wt no ih correction whatsoever;the second includes the same variations but this time for a hypothetical population o f students wt equivalent family context variables and;the ih third refers t those variations f r that same hypothetical o o population,but t i time including an additional condition, hs being that is members also share the condition o having t f been exposed t the same kind o school processes. o f

__
SECTOR (RURAL=O)

DIFFERENCES IN M E A N SCORES BY STRATA, W H E R E THE RURAL STRATA 0, I T H O U T ADJUSTMENT, W ADJUSTING FOR FAMILY B A C K G R O U N D A N D ADJUSTING FOR SCHOOL PROCESSES LANGUAGE MATHEMATICS

=

15

30

25 2 0 15
10

30
20
1 0 0 -10

r

5 0 -5
-10

~~~~MEGA-CITIE ' .PUBLIC

-20
MEGA-CITIE PRIVATE URBAN PUBLIC MODEL I UNADJUSTED M O D E L II ADJUSTED FOR FAMILY BACKG R O U N D MODEL 1 1 1 ADJUSTED FOR SCHOOL PROCESSES

-30
MODEL I UNADJUSTED M O D E L II ADJUSTED FOR FAMILY BACKGROUND MODEL 1 1 1 ADJUSTED FOR SCHOOL PROCESSES

",I",:

F I G U R E S NBOLDTYPEA R E STATISTICALLY G N I F I C A N T T H E .05% LEVEL I SI AT

This means that low achievement levels detected i rural n schoolsare not due t the f c that they are rural,but rather o at t the educationalprocesses prevailing within them.Similarly, o achievementdifferencesbetween public schools and private schools tend t dissipate if we adjust simultaneously f r o o context and process variables included i the model.This n l t e fact means that,beyond being different i the way atr n they are managed,they are also different i the socion cultural level o parents and i the way i which the f n n educational process i carried out i the classroom. s n
23

This chapter presents two different analytic perspectives o student achievement i Language and Mathematics. f n The frt corresponds t an analysis o outcomes within is o f each country fr the different topics o themes included o r i the tests.The second i an analysisby achievement l v l n s ee f r the region as a whole,i order t identify the Mean o n o student achievement f r each o the different strata o f considered.

1. ANALYSIS BY TOPIC
Student performance within each country i each o the n f f v topics selected i Language and the same number i ie n n Mathematics was assessed i relation t the performance n o o these same studentsf r the t s as a whole. This allows f o et us t construct an achievement profile f r each country o o that summarizesthe relative mastery o studentsexpressed f i values as: n

1) 2) 3) 4 ) 5 )

very high; high; fair; low;and very low.

The topics included i Language were: identifying kinds n o text;distinguishing the transmitter and recipient o a f f text;identifyingthe message o a text;recognizing specific f informationi a text,and identifying vocabulary related n to the meaning o a text. I Mathematics,topics included f n were:numbering;operationswt natural numbers; ih common fractions; Geometry,and s i l . kls

It i importantt note that i this analysis, s o n which i s o equivalent t content analysis,relations are established between achievements i different topics within each n country,and that i t i sense,it i not possible t generate n hs s o comparisonsbetween them. Thus,if achievement on a topic f r a country i considered “high”,h s means only o s ti that it i so i regard t the achievement o students o s n o f f the same country on other topics. Nothing can be said, however,regarding whether such achievement can o r cannot be considered “high”i regard t that o students n o f i other countries. n

For example,the low outcome f r the language topic o (distinguishbetween the transmitter and the recipient of a text)does not mean the same i Cuba ( i hthe n wt highest Mean Score)as i Paraguay ( i ha Mean Score n wt o 250).This i to say that it i evident that i Cuba,i f s s n n absolute terms,student achievementon t i topic i superior hs s t the achievementi absolute terms o studentsi Paraguay. o n f n But i both countries,the outcome shows that,o al n fl topics assessed on the Language test,this i particularly s the one t which attentionshould be given i the educational o n process. The outcome f r Mexico on the same topic i o s “Very Low”, while fr Venezuela it i “High”. it i o s But s possible that Mexico has higher student achievement i n absolute terms,given that is Mean Score i higher. t s Nevertheless,Mexico should pay more attention it is t educationalprocess t t i topic than t any other.I other o hs o n words,the real meaning o the outcomes are found when f a country analyzes them f r i s l . o tef

T
COUNTRIES ARGENTINA BOLIVIA BRAZIL CHILE COLOMBIA CUBA HONDURAS MEXICO PARAGUAY AVERAGES 277 244
IDENTIFY TYPES OF TEXTS

O
DISTINGUISH TRANSMITTER &RECIPIENT OFATEXT

P
IDENTIFY MESSAGE OFATEXT

I
RECOGNIZE SPECIFIC INFORMATION OFATEXT

IDENTIFY VOCABULARY RELATEDTO THE MEANING OFATEXT

5

269 272
253

342
230 250 250

DOMINICAN REP. 233 VENEZUELA REGION 242

21 6
it”.iLi..
HIGH FAIR

0
VERY HIGH

0
VERY LOW

LOW

COUNTRIES ARGENTINA BOLIVIA BRAZIL CHILE COLOMBIA CU BA HON D U RAS MEXICO PARAGUAY

AVERAGES 265 251 263

NUMBERS

OPERATIONS WITH NATURAL NUMBERS

COMMON FRACTIONS

GEOMETRY

SKILLS

254 250
357

230
255 246

DOMINICAN REP. 234 VENEZUELA REGION

233

257
0
HIGH FAIR LOW VERY LOW

0
VERY HIGH

The outcomes permit us t concludethat treatment o the o f f v Language and f v Mathematics topics does not obey ie ie standards that one may consider common f r the region o as a whole,nor f r most country groups.Although there o i obvious heterogeneity i the outcomes,i LANGUAGE s n n there are certain identifiable commonalties.O n the one hand,i most countries,students tend t exhibit relatively n o low o very low achievement f r the topics Identify Types r o of Text and Distinguish the Transmitter and Recipient, thus revealing problems wt these s i l .O n the other,i ih kls n most countries,the a i i y t Recognize Specific blt o Information of a Text appear as a high-achievement topic. I MATHEMATICS, topic that shows a degree o n the only f homogeneity i Operations with Natural Numbers, s although no country shows is performances t be located t o a any o the two significantcategories,high and low. t f The greatest discrepancies among countries are seen i n C o m m o n Fractions and Geometry. This may be explained by the differences i emphasis given t these n o topics i the frt years o schooling i each participating n is f n country.

2.ANALYSIS BY P E R F O R M A N C E LEVELS

Level 111. READING USING INFERENCE.On this level,students fiil empty

The analysis o outcomes i Language and Mathematics f n concentrated on s i l attained by studentsthrough the kls study o performance levels. f I the area o LANGUAGE, the areas explored centered on n f sil developed t understand through written language. kls o i MATHEMATICS,s measured sil attained t resolve n the t t e kls o problems that required studentst use levels and types o o f mathematicalreasoning, demanding the employment and o mathematical reasoning wt growing degrees o f ih f complexity. Similart the analysiso s i l ,the analysis by performance o f kls levels allows us t identify the trends o what a student,o o f r a group o students,can o cannot perform,and shows f r how the various degrees o competency that are taught t f o children are manifested,giving us a view o the state o f f education i terms o both quality and equity.I order t n f n o carry out t i part o the Study,items from each t s were hs f et examined i terms o their degree o d f i u t and the kind n f f ifcly o sil they require o students.This allowed us t define f kl f o three levels i each test: n
21 .

spaces o the text,explain assumptionsabout structure, f l n propositions a the micro and macro-textuallevels, ik t and identify different forms o relations implicit i the text. f n Here,questions require the reader t relate part o the o f text t a partial theme and t recognize textual outlines. o o
2.2

Mathematics performance levels

Level I. RECOGNITION A N D EMPLOYMENT O BASIC MATHEMATICAL F o FACTS A N D RELATIONS. Students are able t complete

customary exercises which require them t superficially o recognize mathematical structures.This level requires working i elementary mathematical languageand a i i i s n blte liked t reading and writing numbers, o recognizing geometric figures,identifying simple patterns and carrying out elementary operations.
Level II. RECOGNITION A N D USE OF SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES.

Language performance levels

Level I. SIMPLE LITERAL READING. This is the most basic and simple

Here w e place those students who are able t recognize o simple mathematical structures.They can carry out both routine classroom exercises as well as simple problem situationsthat require them t carry out the four basic o operations.
Level III. RECOGNITION A N D USE O COMPLEX MATHEMATICAL F o STRUCTURES.On this level are those who are able t

level o reading,and requires the recognition o explicit f f local-level structures:t identify actors o a story,the key o f parts o the argument,and explicitly stated relations. f
Level II. PARAPHRASING OF LITERAL READING. Here we have a greater

degree o reading complexity that requires a translation o f f words regulated by the l t r l meaning of the text. There iea are questions that ask that the text be described i other n words,without a in-depthinterpretation being necessary.

recognizecomplex mathematical structures. They can carry out common,as well as solve more elaborate procedures, and are able t solve more complex problems that require o knowledge o the structure o the decimal system and f f handling positional values i order t establish equivalencies. n o

As a criterion f r carrying out the analysis,a base-linewas o established that representsthe percentage o students who f should have attained each Performancelevel i order t n o consider that the Level i question was adequately reached. n
f ttsia Determinationo the base-linewas not a s a i t c ldecision; rather,it i the result of expert judgement o the following s f elements:a complete analysis o the state o the a t i the f f r n teaching o Language and Mathematics,empirical f information,(useo Item Response Theory (IRT] f models, a performance index frdifferent l v ldata,and consistency o ee analysis),the current state o Latin American education, f as well as aspects related t the tests themselves. o Accordingly,it was decided t establish base-lineso 90%, o f 75%, and 50% f r levels i, 11, and III, respectively. This o means that if s i l that the t s assesses are developing kls et adequately,90% o studentswl attain Level i, 75% Level f i l II, and 50% Level III. Thus,if a country achieves these outcomes,one may conclude that the performance o its f students i satisfactory. s

29

3. REGIONAL O U T C O M E S
BY D E M O G R A P H I C STRATA

LANGUAGE. Regional Mean scores met satisfactorylevels on the three Performance Levels only i mega- city n schools.It i fl that i such schools,a satisfactory s et n percentage o children read,recognize meanings,and f understand and interpret information.

I urban schools,achievementi reading cornprehension n n s i l can be considered satisfactory only on the frt level, kls is while a the two other levels that demand mastery o more t f complex skills the situation i 5% t 10% below the s o percentage considered satisfactory. Rural schools exhibit deficiencieson the three levels, especially on the l s two, at where the difference i regard n t the value considered satisfactory i 26% and 19%, o s respectively.

LANGUAGE REGIONAL LEVEL

-

FIGURE 11

1 00

100
9 0
8 3

s o
80
7 1 )

7 0

6 0
50

6 0

..........*..../--/.u

54'16

4.3 46
50
40 30
20 1 0

4 0
3 0

20
1 0
MEGACITY

URBAN

RURAL

MEGACITY

URBAN

RURAL

MEGACITY

URBAN

RURAL

LEVEL I. SIMPLE LITERAL READING
M M M M M M MINIMUM EXPECTED PERCENTAGE

LEVEL II. PARAPHRASING OF LITERAL READING.

LEVEL 111. READING USING INFERENCE.

OVERALL,ONE NOTESTHAT A HIGH NUMBER OF STUDENTS READ WITH ONLY FRAGMENTARY A N D LOCALIZED COMPREHENSION OFTEXTS. THEY IDENTIFY PARTS OFTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN TEXTS,BUT LACK READING COMPREHENSION BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFICULTY IN ESTABLISHING WHYTHETEXTSAYS WHATITDOES. RATHERTHAN UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING A N D INTERPRETING TEXTS,THEYLEARN MORETO PRONOUNCETHE WORDS ALOUD,OR DECODIFY.THE CHILDREN DECODE, BUT DO NOT K N O W H O W TO LEARN THROUGH READING.

MATHEMATICS. Insufficiencieshere are greater,since i no n s r t are minimum expected l v l attained on Performance taa ees Levels II and III, while on Levei I satisfactory levels are achieved only i schools located i mega-citiesand urban n n areas.For Level II, the deficiency varies between 21% f r o the mega-city s r t and 35% frthe r r l strata.Deficiencies taa o ua f r Level III reach 32% f r the mega-c t strata and 38% o o iy f r the rural strata. o

MATHEMATICS

- REGIONAL LEVEL

FIGURE 12

- 100

.......... ..........

80

70

.......... ..........
,

60
50

MEGACITY

URBAN

RURAL

MEGACITY

URBAN

RURAL

MEGACITY

URBAN

RURAL

LEVEL I

RECOGNITION ANDEMPLOYMENTOFBASIC MATHEMATICAL FACTS AND RELATIONS
111111 MINIMUM EXPECTED PERCENTAGE

I F V.. II E. .L . . RECOGNITION AND USE OF SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES.

__

LEVEL III. RECOGNITION AND USE O COMPLEX F MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES.

OUTCOMES INDICATE THAT STUDENTS CAN RECOGNIZE NUMBERS, MATHEMATICAL SIGNS,A N D NUMERICAL A N D ORDER RELATIONS AT A N ELEMENTARY LEVEL,BUT THE MAJORITY D O NOT POSSESS SATISFACTORY MASTERY IN ORDERTO SOLVE MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS,WHETHER SIMPLE OR COMPLEX.

4.REGIONAL O U T C O M E S FOR
PUBLIC A N D PRIVATE SCHOOL

Comparing schools by type o administration again reveals f differences, ih a slight advantage f r the private sector. wt o Both i Language and i Mathematics performance i n n s r l t v l similar fr both s r t on Level i, with achievement eaiey o taa above the l v i considered t be satisfactory. I Language, ee o n f r PerformanceLevels II and II, studentsattending private o schools achieve performance rates that are approximately 1 % above those f r public schools. 0 o I Mathematics,the difference i favor o private school n n f students i near 8 f r Level II items (recognitionand use s % o o simple mathematical structures).Nevertheless,both f public and private schools are well below the minimum expected percentages.The same i true f r the case o s o f Performance Level III (recognitionand use o complex f mathematical structures),where student achievement i n both types o schoolsi 35% below the minimum expected f s percentage.

LANGUAGE REGIONAL LEVEL

-

FIGURE 13

LOO
95

90
85 80 75 70 65 60

55
50

PUBLIC

PRIVATE

PUBLIC

PRIVATE

45 40
PUBLIC PRIVATE

LEVEL I. SIMPLE LITERAL READING.
M M M M I B MINIMUM EXPECTED PERCENTAGE

LEVEL II. PARAPHRASING OF LITERAL READING.

LEVEL 111. READING USING INFERENCE.

32

_ I

'

100

- 90
___~.

- 80

5614 48,20

-I.. .... .... .... ...-

,~
PUBLIC

PRIVATE

LEVEL I. RECOGNITIONAND EMPLOYMENTOF BASIC MATHEMATICAL FACTSAND RELATIONS.

LEVEL Il. RECOGNITION AND USE O SIMPLE F MATHEMATICALSTRUCTURES.

LEVEL 111. RECOGNITION AND USE O COMPLEX F MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES.

70 60

--

SO

- 40 - 30
20

1.4 49

15,Ol

10

PUBLIC

PRIVATE

111111 MINIMUM EXPECTED PERCENTAGE

I short,the analysis o learning outcomes i both Language n f n and Mathematics reveals a clearly deficient situation. Except for Cuba,most third and fourth grade students who participated i the Study have not developed s i l n kls according t expectations,remaining on a basic level o o f recognition o signs and structures o Language and f f Mathematics.This shows,i varying degrees,a deficient n development of communicationand problem-solvingskills.

I other words,students learn t read,but have d f i u t e n o ifclis understanding the meaning o what they read and f interpreting texts.They learn numbers,numerical relations, signsand structures, are unable t solve simple problems. but o Nor can they extrapolate the applicationo mathematics f t everyday situations. o

This chapter has two basic objectives.The frt i t offer is s o a f n l synthesiso the conclusions o the Study,t i time ia f f hs o f presented hierarchically,according t the magnitude o the relative individualeffect that each associated factor proved t have upon achievement i Language and o n Mathematics i the third and fourth grades,and wt a n ih s a i t c l significance level o a least 0.05%. ttsia f t

It should be emphasized here that the analytic s a i t c l ttsia instrumentemployed was that o HierarchicalLinear Models f (HLM) which i based,i turn,upon general regression s n models,but incorporates the condition o carrying out f analysis on more than one level o aggregation a once. f t i the present case,the aggregation levels were basically n two:students and schools.The outcomes presented below correspond t the l t e .Finally,it i important t note o atr s o that the analysis presented here,as an expression o f multiple regrescion models,simultaneously incorporates al the variables o the regression equation simultaneously. l f Thus,we repeat that t i analysis presents score differences hs i each variable f r a hypothetical group o students that n o f corresponds t the Mean Socio-CulturalStatus i the o n region.
The second objective o this chapter i t treat questions f s o that,due t is design,scope,o non-availabilityf resources, ot r o the present Study was unable t answer,and which thus o remain themes fr future research. o

1. CONCLUSIONS
The magnitude o the relation between Associated Factors f and Achievement i Language and Mathematics i n s operationally defined i t i chapter as the number o n hs f units i the standardized scale adopted for achievement n (Mean=250points;Standard Deviation=50 points) o f increase o reduction due to the effect o the presence o r f f a specific variable (associatedfactor),correspondingt the o increment o one unit on the scale o that variable.For f f greater c a i y operationaldefinitions ( o mo measurement) lrt, fr f o most o the variables mentioned i this chapter are f f n presented i Appendix 2 - Analysis o Variables. n f

Next i the variable,INVOLVEMENTOF s PARENTS GUARDIANS OR (SCHOOL LEVEL).Analysis reveals that f r each additional o point i the scale i which parents say that they are n n involved i the school i which their children study, n n student achievement increases by 21.11points i n Language and by 14.98 points i Mathematics. n

II Next i importance i terms o is effect on achievement n n ft
i FAMILY S U P P O R T AS A CAUSE ATTRIBUTED STUDENT S FOR O U T C O M E S , AS P E R C E I V E D TEACHERS. t i case,the BY In h s

It should be mentioned beforehand that the t t l percentages oa o variance explained by the model,w t i schools,are f ihn discreet,and reach 13.5% for Language and 15.6% f r o
Mathematics.In contrast,t t l percentages o variance oa f explained between schools are notably higher,reaching 68.3%i Language and 61.3%i Mathematics. n n

outcome i the opposite direction from those seen t s o date for the r s o the variables.It i interestingt note et f s o that each point i which teacherssee studentoutcomes n as attributable t family support correspondsto a o decrease o 10.09 f points i Language and 22.30 n n i Mathematics. The e f c o GRADE fet f LEVEL as an Associated Factor shows that being i the fourth grade i related to 18.80more n s more points i n points i Language, n and 15.30 Mathematics than being i the third grade. n

H

CLASSROOMCLIMATEi the single variable that s demonstrates the greatest positive effect upon both i Language and i Mathematics. n n achievement, I fact,a value o 1 f r t i variable,meaning a student n f o hs appraisal o the climate as "satisfactory", f corresponds t a 92.07 o point increase i Language and 115.03 n points f r Mathematics.It i interesting t note that, o s o i t i case,the effect corresponds to almost exactly n hs two (2) standard deviations o increasei achievement. f n

W W e next have the variable TEACHER A N ADDITIONAL HAS
exercise another professional a t v t besides that o teaching i the ciiy f n school i which they were interviewed,student n achievementi 11.20points l s i Language and 9.7 s es n 1 points less i Mathematics than for those students n whose teachers work exclusively i the school i which n n they were interviewed. The next i this l s i g o effects o variables on n itn f f achievement i that called STUDENTSG R O U P EBY ABILITY. s D This points t the practice o segregating students i o f n school according t some variable - i t i case their o n hs own a i i i s Analysis shows that,as the variable moves blte. toward greater homogeneity o groups o students i f f n the classroom, o each 0.5 fr point i t i direction there n hs are reductions o 10.35points i Language achievement f n and 11.64 points i Mathematics f r students under n o these conditions.
JOB. n t i case,f r teachers who I hs o

W The variable that has the second greatest effect,also
positive,i STUDENTABILITY A CAUSAL s AS ATTRIBUTION FOR SCORE OUTCOMES, AS PERCEIVED TEACHERS. BY Analysis shows that each additional score point i which teachers n attribute student achievement t Student Ability o corresponds to a 21.01point increase i Language n achievement and a 21.59point increase i Mathematics n achievement.

I W e next have the variable,SIZEOF LIBRARY. The results
show that studentsenrolled i schools that have more n than 1,000 books i their libraries earn 10.40 n more points i Language and 9.90 n more points i n Mathematics than those attending schools that have less than this number o books i their libraries. f n In the case o the variable ADEQUATE f SALARY,which f reflects the judgement o teachers regarding whether their salariesare sufficient.Where teachers judge their salariest be sufficient,student achievement i 7.63 o s points higher i Language and 9.59 n points higher i n Mathematics than for studentswhose teachers do not s indicate when asked about their salaries. o The variable,GENDER, has an impact.Being a gr also il i related to obtaining 6.04 s more points more than boys i Language,and 1.79 n points less than boys i n Mathematics.

The next variable i terms o influence on achievement n f i SOCIO-ECONOMIC s LEVELOFTHE SCHOOL. This i an estimated s variable o the Social-economicLevel o the School as f f perceived by the school’s Principal.A one-unit increase i t i variable i related t increases o 5.64 n hs s o f points i n student Language achievement and o 5.88 f points i n Mathematics.

R Similarly,the variable,IO OR MORE BOOKS has an impact
on achievement.In t i case,we consider households hs that have 1 o more books.Achievement o children 0r f who l v i households which have this number o ie n f books i 4.54 s points higher i Language and 5.20 n points higher i Mathematics than f r those from n o households not having t i number o books. hs f

I Another variable that shows a significant effect i s
GRADUATED F R O MG R A D E 12,which identifiesthe education l v l o parents o a particular student as being a grade ee f f t 12 or higher.The effect o parents of students having f completed a least 12 grades o school i related t a t f s o studentachievement o 3.87 f points higher i Language n and 3.63 points higher i Mathematics than those n students whose parents do not have this level o f schooling.

R Another achievement-related variable i PARENTSO R s
G U A R D I A NREAD FREQUENTLY. This refers t cases i S o n which parents o guardians read t children every day. r o In the case o parents who do so,their children have f 5.88 more points i Language,and 4.31 n more points i Mathematics than the children o those parents o n f r guardians who do not.

I The variable denominated TEACHER OVER-BURDENED i s
o scaled according t how the teacher responds when r r asked if he o she has o does not have arduous f working hours.Students o teacherswho do not report arduoushours achieve 5.78 more points i Mathematics n than students o teachers who do s report.There i f o s no Significant relationship i the case o Language n f outcomes f r any o the alternatives. o f

Next i the impact o the variable entitled PARENTSO R s f GUARDIANS SOMETIMES READ, defined as a c i d being read hl t more than once per month.Forthose studentswhose o parents sometimes read to them,achievement i 3.14 s points higher i Language and 2.96 n points higher i n Mathematics than those students whose parents do not do so.

I Another variable that shows a relationship wt ih
achievement i TEACHER s TRAINING. variable i defined This s as the number o years o post-secondarytraining o f f f teachers.Each year o training that teachers have f corresponds t an increase i scores o their students o n f o 2.44 f points i Language and 2.06points i n n Mathematics.

W A variable that exhibits a peculiar relationship wt ih
achievement i that entitled PARENTSO R GUARDIANS s HELP WITH HOMEWORK. For those students whose parents help them with their homework there i a reduction s o 2.2 points i Language and 2.73points i f 1 n n Mathematics,as compared t those studentswho do o not receive help wt homework from their parents. ih

H The next variable,listed i order o relative impact,i n f s
EDUCATION OFPARENTSOR GUARDIANS, defined as the Mean value o the number o years o schooling o parents f f f f and guardians.Each year o increase i t i variable f n hs correspondst an increaseo 0.97 o f points i Language n achievement,and 0.81points i Mathematics n achievement.

II Another variable i INVOLVEMENT s
(CLASSROOM LEVEL).Here we

RATIO shows an OFPARENTSOR GUARDIANS W The variable entitled STUDENT-TEACHER INVERSErelationship with achievement.The data show see that each unitary that an increase i the number o studentsper teacher n f increase i the involvement o parents a t i level n f t hs correspondst a decrease of0.49 o points i Language n correspondst an additional 1.82 o points i Language n achievement and o 0.53 f points i Mathematics n achievement and 2.22 points i Mathematics n achievement. achievement for their children.

I The next variable i ATHOME~ T O ~ H O U R which receives s S,
a maximum score if the parent o guardian stays a r t home fr 3 o 4hours during working days.A positive o r unit f r t i variable corresponds t an increase o o hs o f 2.00 points i Language achievement, ih no n wt corresponding significantincrease f r Mathematics o scores.

2.IMPLICATIONS FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH

As i the case in studies o this nature,is findings can s f t
form the basis fr new investigations, o whether o the same f themes o on other themes based on new information r furnished by the Study.Although the Laboratory i currently s committed t the development o a Qualitative Study o o f f Schools wt Outstanding Outcomes,i seven countries ih n o the region,thanks t the support o the Ford Foundation, f o f i order t p r i l y fill the need fr answers t such n o atal o o questions,a large number o these wl require research f i l t be undertaken by other entities.It i f r t i reason that o s o hs the present chapter has sought t identify questions that o seem most relevantand which are presented as suggestions.

I Next i the variable,INSTRUCTIONAL s

MATERIALS. Outcomes show that for each additional element o equipment, f f there i an increase i Language achievement o 1.96 s n points for those students enrolled i schools that offer n these conditions.There i not significantrelationship s i the case o Mathematics. n f

The next variable i that termed BI-PARENTAL. s This describes whether the family has one o two parental r figuresi the household.The presence o two parents n f i related t an increase o 1.89 s o f points i student n Language achievement.There i no significant s relationship i the case o Mathematics. n f

A frt aspect arises from findingsi regard t variations is n o
i achievementi Languageand Mathematicsi d f e e t n n n ifrn strata,particularly demographic strata (mega-cities, urban,and rural areas).These seem t suggest that o achievement i not necessarily linked directly t strata s o characteristicsper se,as had been suggested i the n literature,but rather that achievementi related t other s o variables,o through others such as social-economic r Characteristicso students,school pedagogy,classroom f practices,o the interactions between these variables. r

It would be interesting t explore the relation o other o f strata,especially those o a demographic nature,and f the characteristicsand practices cited above.

E A theme o key importance i t look more deeply into f so
the relationship between achievement and the chronologicalage o students.This was touched upon f i the Study by the variable “Rate o Progress”. n f Moreover,t i i a subject that reveals a great hs s heterogeneity o behavior between different countries f and which has implicationsas well f r education policy. o

significantly related t student achievement scores.To o this we should note that in-serviceteacher training i s an education improvement t o that i widely used i ol s n o the Region,and one that i certainly susceptiblet s education policy decisions.

E Two lines o questioning naturally emerge from results f
on the indicator entitled “Classroom Climate”.The frt concerns confirming the percentageso explained is f variance,which,given their magnitudes,certainly warrant confirmation,both i terms o the contribution n f o the indicatoras a whole,as well as those o individual f f variables.The second l n o questioning concerns ie f exploration o the relationships between School f r f Achievement and other variables,o combinations o variables, that operationalizethe “construct”School Climate.It seems important that such variables be chosen both from those that stem from the perceptions o studentsas well as from the perceptions o teachers f f o principals. r

E A n additional important aspect t investigate i that o s
related t the quality o library materials.The present o f f n Study looked only a the quantity o materiais i school t libraries,and only i a dichotomous sense (more o n r less than 1,000 books). It would be interesting t o examine the effect o the quality o such materials on f f achievement,since the independent variable,i t i n hs case,i sensitive t education policy decisions i the s o n Region and i ,moreover,one o the few input variables s f that the Study identified as significant.

E It i important t look closely a examples o outstanding s o t f
achievement.This i the principal subject o an s f investigation already underway by the Laboratory.A t least three areas seem t be o particular interest.The o f frt o these i Cuba,which,given the magnitude o is f s f studentperformance i is case,may representa model nt fr the rest o the Region.The second i that o rural o f s f schools i Colombia,which i some cases showed n n better performances than urban schoolsi that country. n These may serve as an important example o putting f learning-focused educational policies into practice. The third area i that o Urban Strata schools i Chile, s f n which i some cases demonstrated better achievement n than schoolsi mega- cities,and which may be an n example o the effects o administrativepolicies on f f education variables.

E Another theme worth exploring i that o the differential s f
effect o i i i l and in-service f nta teacher training on the product variables.According t the findings o the o f Study,there i a significant,positive relationshipbetween s student achievement and post-secondarytraining o f their teachers.This i not the case,however,f r ins o service teacher training.It would be interesting t look o simultaneously a the relation between b t independent t oh variables and achievement i order t c a i y doubts i n o lrf n regard t individual effects,as well as t possible effects o o that t e r interactionsmay have on student achievement. hi

E Furthermore,there i a need t study the contribution s o
o in-serviceteacher training toward explaining student f achievement from the perspective o the quality of f differenttypes o such training.This topic i extremely f s relevant,given the fact that the only thing the present Study concludeshere i that the usual in-servicetraining s currently u i i e i the different countries i not tlzd n s

I The Study provides some evidence that school and
classroom-relatedvariables seem t have a greater o effect on Achievementthan those linked t the macro o l v l o the system. also appearsthat process variables ee f it explain a higher percentage o t s score variance than f et input variables.Both focused and general research are necessary i order t confirm,reject,o complement n o r the findings o t i Study. f hs The theme o the relation between financialinvestment f i education i the presence o other process variables n n f would seem t be an area f r future research.The o o f present Study,although treating the effect o those variables that are closely related t what normally o constitutesa large part o spending on education,does f not include the theme o economicresources i a direct f n and deliberate manner.The subject o financing i f s undoubtedly central i education policy decision-making. n

I Although variables related t the pre-schooleducation o
o studentsdid not reveal a significant relation t f o achievement i t i Study,the effects o pre-school n hs f experience,according t relevant literaturei the f e d o n il, appear t be considerable.For t i reason,the o hs contribution o these variables t school achievement f o needs t be studied,particularly considering the o implicationsthey have f r education policy. o

Governments,institutions,and individuals have made this Second Report possible. Among the frt are the Ministries and Departments o Education o the countriesthat comprise the Latin American is f f Laboratory f r Assessment o Quality i Education (Argentina, o f n Bolivia,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Costa Rica,Cuba, Dominican Republic,Ecuador,E Salvador,Guatemala,Honduras,Mexico,Panama,Paraguay,and Venezuela)and l i particular those who participated i the Study and which have assumed the most important part o is financing. n n f t The generosity o Brazil and Chile merits special mention f r having become underwriters o the Laboratory. f o f Among internationalorganizations, Laboratory has benefited from the financial and technical support o UNESCO, the f the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank,the Ford Foundation,the Andrés Bello Agreement Secretariat,Government o Spain and Fundación Andes. In the l s part o the Study,we recognize the decided support given by the Senior f at f Technical Committee o the Laboratory i s l ,composed o some o the above institutions, well as the OECD, f tef f f as IEA, ETC.and the World Bank. The Measurement and Assessment Systems o the countries that participated i the Study generously placed their f n experience,resources,intelligence,and good-will a the disposal o the Laboratory,and were the key element o the t f f research. National Coordinating Groups were l d by Hilda Lanza and Lucrecia Tulic (Argentina); e María Inés Gómez de Sá Pestana (Brazil); Susana Barrera (Bolivia);María Inés Álvarez,Josefina Olivares,and Iván Ortiz (Chile);Héctor Fernández (Colombia); Héctor Valdés (Cuba);Leonte Ramírez and Julio Valeiron (DominicanRepublic),Judith Barahona and Cristián Rodriguez (Honduras);Marta Lafuente and Juana Delmás (Paraguay);Victor M.Velázquez (Mexico); Yamila and Nadales,Asmara Anderson,and Nelly Chacón (Venezuela). This Second Report o the InternationalStudy received the support o a number o officials,specialists and consultants. f f f Among these were Nigel Brookes,Lesbia Cánovas,Rolando Castañeda,Rubén Cervini,Gustavo Cuadra,María Helena Guimaraes D e Castro,Claudio D e Moura Castro,María del Carmen Díaz,Viola Espinola,Martha Grijalva,Sandy Gutkowski,Yetilú Lunge de Baessa,Ricardo Hevia,Noel McGinn,Héctor Muñoz,Scott Murray,Sergio Prenafeta, Pedro Ravela,Wilma Santa María,María Alejandra Schulmayer,and Larry Wolff.

Very special thanks t Doug Willms,f r the development o the Hierarchical Linear Analysis;Richard Wolfe,f r h s o o f o i support i the areas o sampling and s a i t c l analysis;Carlos Pardo,f r h s participation i the analysis by Topics n f ttsia o i n and by Achievement Levels;Martha Castillo and Gloria Inostroza i Language,and Claudia Salazar and Irene Villarroel n i Mathematics. n The Study was carried out by the Latin American Laboratory f r Assessment o Quality i Education. It was directed o f n by the Regional Coordinating Group o the Laboratory and by i s National Coordinators. f t The Regional Coordinating Group,wt headquarters a OREALCLJNESCOn Santiago,Chile,was composed of ih t i Juan Casassus,Coordinator o the Study,Sandra Cusato,Juan Enrique Froemel,Maite González,and Juan Carlos f Palafox. Data were processed in-countryand by the Regional Coordinating Group. The analysis benefited from the support o the Department o Statisticso the University o Ontario,Canada,the School o Education o the University o N e w f f f f f f f Brunswick,and the Colombian Institute f r Support o Higher Education (ICFES). o f The authors express their gratitude t those who made valuable contributionsto the Report,while making it clear that o responsibility f r what i expressed therein i entirely their own. o s s

LANGUAGE
, ADJUSTED MEAN SCORES

MATHEMATICS 261 -1.79 15.30 08 .1 36 .3 18 .9 1.36 52 .0

262 6.04 18.80 0.97 3.87 0.75 20 .0 4.54

GENDER (M-F)
GRADE

LEVEL (GRADE 4-GRADE3)

SOCIO-CULTURAL STATUS Education Level o Parents o Guardians f r rm Graduated f o Grade 12 Two Parents A H o m e 3 t 4Hours t o Ten o More Books r PREVIOUS EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE Attended Pre-School Pre-SchoolNot Available Non-ValidData Parents o Guardians Read Often r Parents o Guardians Read Occasionally r Parents o Guardians Help With Homework r IN-SCHOOL RESOURCES Teacher/Student Ratio TSR Squared Infrastructure Instructional Materials Size o School Library (>1,000 f Books) Teacher Experience Teacher Education In-serviceTeacher Training

1.71 -2.58 -8.20 58 .8 31 .4
-2.12

0.75 -0.79 -7.29 43 .1 29 .6 -2.73
-0.53 0.00 0.56 0.22 9.90 0.21 20 .6 0.55

-0.49 00 .1 0.66 19 .6 10.40 0.02 24 .4 0.22

NOTE: FIGURES IN SOLDTYPE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ATTHE .O5LEVEL

3

LENCUACE
SCHOOL CULTURE Teachers Hold Other Jobs Teacher Attitudes Adequate Salary Leadership o Principal f Working Conditions Job Satisfaction Teacher Not Over-burdened Autonomy o Teacher f Autonomy o Principal f

MATHEMATICS

-11.20 7.63 5.61 -7.71 -0.90 -4.31 -9.30 -3.13

-9.71 9.59 4.07 0.03 -3.57 -5.78 -9.32 -4.80 -22.30 21.59 -5.84 -1.40 5.54 3.99 0.39

TEACHER-ATTRIBUTED OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT CAUSES Family Support -10.09 Student Ability 21.10 Student Self-Esteem -0.31 School Climate -8.96 School Resources -0.93 Teaching Methods 3.85 Teacher Expectations 1.61
CLASSROOMPRACTICES Multi-gradeGroups Systematic Assessment Students Grouped by Ability Parents and Guardians Involved (classroomlevel) Parents and Guardians Involved (schoollevel) Classroom Climate

-4.46 5.58 -10.35 1.82 21.11 92.07
5.64 13.6 68.3

-5.49 4.59 -11.64 2.22 14.98 115.03
5.88 15.6 61.3

SOCIO-ECONOMIC LEVEL OF SCHOOL
PERCENTAGE OF VARIANCE

EXPLAINED

In-school Between Schools
NOTE: FIGURES IN BOLDTYPE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTATTHE .O5LEVEL

W e describe i detail below the constructs o indices and the variables used i the n r n analysis o Associated Factors. f

GENDER Coded O f r boys and 1 f r girls,wt a Mean Score o 0.5 o o ih f
GRADE Coded -0.5 o Grade 3 and 0.5 o Grade 4 fr fr

EDUCATION OF PARENTSCreated from a question that asked for the education level of the guardian and spouse,rather than the years o education. A continuousvariable f was created f r each parent,and then the variable was created from the Mean Scores o o the two.The Regional Mean Score o t i variable i 9.3 f f hs s years o education. f
COMPLETE SECONDARYCoded 1 if the education ofthe parents o a given child was 12 f years o more (graduatedfrom secondary school)and O if it was not. The Regional r Mean Score i 0.2277. s

Two PARENTSCoded 1 if the child has two parental figures a home,independently t o whether they are married o not,and O f r any other case. The Regional Mean f r o Score i 0.7789. s
3 OR 4 HOURS NT H E HOUSEHOLD I Coded 1 if the responding parent o guardian spends r 3 t 4hours i the household during work days o the week (notconsidering hours o n f o sleep)o only time between shifts,and O if the case i otherwise. The Regional f r s

Mean Score i 0.2258. s
1 ORMORE 0 BOOKS coded 1 if there are 1 o more books i the child’shousehold 0r n s and O if there are not. The Regional Mean Score i 0.4200.

SCS (SOCIO-CULTURAL STATUS) A compound measure o the socio-cultural f level o f children,coded from Parents’Education, Two Parents, 3 or 4 Hours in the Household, and 10 or More Books using factor analysis.It was then standardized i order t obtain n o a Mean Score o O and a standard deviation o 1. f f MEGA-CITY, PUBLIC; MEGA-CITY, PRIVATE; URBAN, PUBLIC; D URBAN, AN PRIVATECoded 1 if the school fl within the relevant classification, O if it did not,with rural schools el and being the reference category.Regional mean scores were then calculated f r these o variables. They are,respectively, 0.1252, 0.0878, 0.3195, 0.1189. and

STUDENT ATTENDED PRE-SCHOOLCoded 1 if the student was i some form o pre-school n f program before the frt grade,and O if t i was not the case. The Regional Mean is hs Score i 0.7412. s
There was,however,much missing i t i variable. Therefore,following the procedure n hs recommended by Cohen and Cohen (19821, missing data f r Student Attended Preo school were placed a the variable’sMean Score (0.7460) a dummy variable was t and constructed which identified respondentswith missing data f r t i variable (missing o hs = 1 and O f r the contrary). Using this technique,the analysis produced estimates o o f the effect o pre-schoolf r those who did not have v l d data,and estimates o the f o ai f differences i achievement scores between those who had data and those who d d not. n i
P A R E N T / G U A R D I AREADS FREQUENTLY Coded 1 if the guardian read t h s o her N o i r children almost every day when they were young and O if the contrary was the case. The Regional Mean Score i 0.3641. s P A R E N T / ~ U A R D IREADS SOMETIMES Coded 1 if the guardian read t h s o her children AN o i r more than once per month but not every day,and O if the contrary was the case.The Regional Mean Score i 0.2813. s STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO Constructed by dividing a school’s enrollment by the number o teachers i the school.The Regional Mean Score i 27.3196. f n s

INFRASTRUCTURE Constructed by counting the number o infrastructureresourcesfound f i the school.The Regional Mean Score i 3.5860. n s
20 TO 999 BOOKS IN THE LIBRARY A N D M O R E THAN 1,000BOOKS Coded 1 if the school library had the relevant number o books i the corresponding range,and O if it did f n not,with the reference category fewer than 20 books. Regional averages are 0.2725 and 0.3375.

TEACHER EXPERIENCE Expressed as the number of years.The Regional Mean Score i s 13.1571. INITIALTEACHER TRAINING Expressed i years.The Regional Mean Score i 3.4587. n s
IN-SERVICE TEACHERR A I N I N G number o training courses taken within the l s T The f at three years.The Regional Mean Score i 4.799 s

TEACHER A N ADDITIONAL Coded 1 if the teacher has a job other than teaching HAS JOB i the school,and O if the contrary i the case.The Regional Mean Score i 0.2034. n s s ADEQUATE SALARY Coded 1 if the teacher i satisfied with his o her salary,and O if s r not.The Regional Mean Score i 0.2052. s

LEADERSHIP OF THE SCHOOLPRINCIPAL Constructed from the Mean values o f v f ie dichotomous (yes=1,no=O) variables, indicating whether principais (a)motivate the work o teachers,(b)value the work o teachers,(c)create a flexible educational f f environment,(d)if teachers have confidence i the principal’s n expertise,and (e)if teachers feel involved i the school.The Regional Mean Score i 0.8119. n s
WORKING CONDITIONS Constructed using the Mean values o three dichotomous (yes=l, f no=O)variables, indicating if the school provides a safe working environment,if there i a clear definition o the roles o teachers and principals,and if the teacher feels s f f isolated from his o her colleagues.The Regional Mean Score i 0.6486. r s
JOB SATISFACTION Constructed using the Means scores o four dichotomous (yes=l, f no=O)variables indicating if the teacher’si i i t v s are supported by colleagues,if the ntaie teacher i respected by his o her students,if colleagues consult the teacher regarding s r teaching materials,and if the teacher enjoys teaching.The Regional Mean Score i s 0.8616.

TEACHER OVER-BURDENED 1 if the teacher does not have an arduous schedule, Coded r and O if he o she does.The Regional Mean Score was 0.3660. AUTONOMY Constructed from the Mean values o four dichotomous (yes=l, f no=O) variables,denoting if the teacher feels free t carry out his o her functions,if the o r teacher participates i work decisions,i the selection o texts,and i the selection n n f n o the audio-visual f materials that he o she uses.The Regional Mean Score i 2.4053. r s AUTONOMYOF PRINCIPAL Constructed from the Mean values o nine other variables. f The frt indicates if the school has complete (=3), is partial (=2), no (=i)autonomy. o r The others indicateif the principal has complete (=3),p r i l (=2),o no (=i)autonomy ata r i various administrative tasks he o she carries out,such as budgeting,discipline,and n r text selection.The compound construct has a Regional Mean Score o 2.4053. f AITRIBUTION CAUSEOF RESULTS Constructed using two questions. One asked teachers OF t which o f v factors they attributed the academic problems o their worst students. o f ie f The other asked about the success o their best students.A variable was frt created f is f r each one o the response alternatives o the questions,counting the number o o f f f times that each response was given by the teacher.Factor analysis was then used t o determine the best way t group the multiple responses into a few more general o variables that indicate family support,student a i i y student self-esteem, blt, school climate, school resources,and teaching methods.A Mean Score was calculated f r each one o o these s x more general constructs. Regional averages were then calculated.They f i are 0.4734, 0.3544, 0.3193, 0.2839, 0.1922, 0.4561, and respectively.

47

TEACHER EXPECTATIONS Coded from 1 to 5, denoting the different levels o education f that teachers believe that their studentswl reach. The Regional Mean Score i 2.8762. i l s MULTI-GRADE CLASSROOMCoded 1 if the instructor teacheswt many grades present ih i the same classroom,and O if t i i not the case.The Regional Mean Score i n hs s s

0.1372.
STUDENTSEXAMINED Coded 1 if the teachers assesses students using tests,and O if he o she does not.The Regional Mean Score i 0.3767. r s

STUDENTS GROUPED ABILITY BY Coded 1 if the teacher groups students i a uniform n manner according t learning ability,gender,age,or ethnicity;0.5if students are not o grouped o if an unspecified criterion i used;and O if students are grouped uniformly r s by learning ability,gender,and age. The Regional Mean Score i 0.2464. s

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Constructed from the Mean values o other parental variables: f if the parent participates i school-related c i i i s (1 rarely,2=sometimes,3=always), n atvte = if the parent knows the teacher o his or her child (1=no,2= a l t l ,3= very well), f ite and if the parent participates i parent and guardian meetings (i= never or rarely,2= n
almost always,3 = always). Parent involvement was calculated for each school. The Regional Mean Score i 2.5352. s
CLASSROOMCLIMATEConstructed from the Mean values o three other variables f denoting:whether there are studentsi the class who bother others (1 = no,O = yes), n if quarrels occur frequently (1= no,O = yes), and if students i the class are good n friends (1= yes,O = no). This discipline- related construct was then calculated f r o each school.The Regional Mean Score i 0.5995. s
INSTRUCTION TIME DEVOTEDTO LANGUAGE A N D INSTRUCTION TIME DEVOTEDTO MATHEMATICS Constructed by multiplying the number o sessionso mathematics o language taught f f r by the teacher during the school week by the duration (inminutes) o the class o f r session.The Regional Averages o the variables are 293.2590 269.4816, f and respectively.