cies west 2011 raquel et al final

8/2/2019 CIES West 2011 Raquel Et Al Final

1/56


2/56

2


3/56

Definition of school exclusion A roach Model

Broader implications

3


4/56

SCHOOL EXCLUSIONSCHOOL EXCLUSION

4


5/56

PreliminaryPreliminary assumptionsassumptions

Education as a fundamentalfundamental humanhuman rightright (DakarFramework for Action, 2000)

This is only fully met if and only if formal schooling

translates into learninglearning. Hence, if a student does not develop basic skills he/shehe/she isis excludedexcluded..

5


6/56


7/56

exclusionexclusion?? We consider the distribution of learning among students(Soares, 2009).

It is possible to list four levels of learning which reflectpedagogicaland normative meanings:

AdvancedAdvanced levellevel studentsstudents o be ond what would beexpected for his/her school stage.

ProficientProficient studentsstudents demonstrate the content and skills

. BasicBasic levellevel studentsstudents demonstrate only partial abilities.

BelowBelow BasicBasic levellevel studentsstudents demonstrate rudimentarycompetence of the field measured.

7


8/56

exclusionexclusion?? We consider the distribution of learning among students(Soares, 2009).

It is possible to list four levels of learning which reflectpedagogicaland normative meanings:

AdvancedAdvanced levellevel studentsstudents o be ond what would beexpected for his/her school stage.

ProficientProficient studentsstudents demonstrate the content and skills

. BasicBasic levellevel studentsstudents demonstrate only partial abilities.

BelowBelow BasicBasic levellevel students demonstrate rudimentaryOur

competence of the field measured.ocus

8


9/56

DefinitionDefinition ofof schoolschool exclusionexclusion

stu ent s exc u e e s e as

not performed, according to his/herlevel of schooling, the basic skills in

Readin and Math in the national

evaluation system (Prova Brasil)

9


10/56

10


11/56

Table 1: Definition of learning levels according to students scores.

LearningLearning LevelLevel4th grade4th grade 8th grade8th grade

ReadingReading MathMath ReadingReading MathMath

Below Basic

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

Source: Soares, Jos Francisco. ndice de Desenvolvimento da Educao de So Paulo IDESP:bases metodolgicas. So Paulo Perspec., So Paulo, v. 23, n. 1, p. 29-41, jan./jun. 2009.

11


12/56




Below Basic < 150 < 175 < 200 < 225

Basic 150.01 to 200 175,01 to 200 200.01 to 275 225.01 to 300

Proficient 200.01 to 250 200.01 to 225 275.01 to 325 300.01 to 350

Advanced > 250.01 > 225.01 > 325.01 > 350.01


12


13/56




Below Basic < 150 < 175 < 200 < 225

Basic 150.01 to 200 175.01 to 200 200.01 to 275 225.01 to 300


Advanced > 250.01 > 225.01 > 325.01 > 350.01


13


14/56




Below Basic < 150 < 175 < 200 < 225

Basic 150.01 to 200 175.01 to 200 200.01 to 275 225.01 to 300


Advanced > 250.01 > 225.01 > 325.01 > 350.01


14


15/56


16/56

16


17/56

ApproachApproach

Item Response Theory - IRT (Hambleton, 1993) Aggregate the information in the questionnaire into a singlesinglelatentlatent traittrait.

17


18/56

ApproachApproach


Advantages:

Creating a continuous and directly interpretable measure;

Caveat: Measure ma not be ca tured full ;

18


19/56

ApproachApproach


Advantages:

Creating a continuous and directly interpretable measure;

Caveat: Measure ma not be ca tured full ;

However, measure can be validated using statisticalprocedures (polychoric matrix, analysis of eigenvalues and

19


20/56

Student and famil back round

Teacher quality

School quality

20


21/56


22/56

TeachersTeachers qualityquality indicatorsindicators

Teacher uses technology (ICT)

Participatory learning techniques

Formal teaching techniquesTeachers training

Teachers working condition

22


23/56

PrincipalsPrincipals qualityquality indicatorsindicators

Principals evaluation by teachers

Principals training

23


24/56

SchoolsSchools qualityquality indicatorsindicators

School environment (Principal)

School environment (Teachers)

Quality of the library

-

Operating conditions (Principal)

Equipment

Facilities

24


25/56

25


26/56

HierarchicalHierarchical ((multilevelmultilevel)) modelmodel

Incorporates the hierarchical structure of dataand allows for joint modeling of the differenteve s o o serva on.

26


27/56

HierarchicalHierarchical ((multilevelmultilevel)) modelmodel

Incorporates the hierarchical structure of dataand allows for joint modeling of the differenteve s o o serva on.

Allow the formulation of hypothesis testing and-

school (Cameron and Trivedi, 2005; Raudenbushand Br k 2000

27


28/56

MethodologicalMethodological strategystrategy We employed a random intercept linear hierarchical model.

28


29/56


DependentDependent variablevariable: probability of student exclusion

IndependentIndependent variablesvariables:: constructs that measure aspects

of the student's background and quality of school,teacher and principal

29


30/56


DependentDependent variablevariable: probability of student exclusion

IndependentIndependent variablesvariables:: constructs that measure aspects

of the student's background and quality of school,teacher and principal

Construct variables transformation: scale of 0 (worst

We also include controls for school variables: averageSES and proportion of overage students.

30


31/56

31


32/56

Composition of students in terms of level of learningin Reading in Math by grade. Prova Brasil, 2007

Reading

Math

8th

gr

ade

de

Below basic

Basic

Proficient

Reading

Math

4th

gr

Advanced

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of students

32

Source: Microdata from Prova Brasil 2007


33/56


Reading

Math

8th

gr

ade

de

Below basic

Basic

Proficient

Reading

Math

4th

gr

Advanced

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


33



34/56


Reading

Math

8th

gr

ade

de

Below basic

Basic

Proficient

Reading

Math

4th

gr

Advanced

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


34



35/56

Race/color composition of 4th graders in Brazilian Public

90%

100%

Schools by level of achievement. Brazil, 2007.

60%

70%

80%

fstudents

Asian

Black

30%

40%

50%

or

portion

o

Pardo

White

0%

10%

Below basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Level of Math learning

Source: Microdatafrom ProvaBrasil2007(INEP/MEC).

35


36/56


90%

100%


60%

70%

80%

fstudents

Asian

Black

30%

40%

50%

or

portion

o

Pardo

White

0%

10%




36


37/56


90%

100%


60%

70%

80%

fstudents

Asian

Black

30%

40%

50%

or

portion

o

Pardo

White

0%

10%




37

Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills


38/56

Below

Average score on selected variables by level of Reading skills.

Prova Brasil, 4th grade, 2007

BasicCultural environmentParents involvement

SESSchool environment (Principal)School environment (Teacher)Principal evaluation by teachersQuality of libraryIntra-school cohesion

Operating conditions (Teacher)EquipmentFacilities

Principals trainingTeacher uses technology (ICT)Participatory learning tecniques

Teachers training

Teachers working conditions 38



39/56

Below



BasicCultural environment 4.66 4.86 5.12 5.38Parents involvement 6.00 6.23 6.36 6.41

. . . .SES 4.73 4.84 5.12 5.41School environment (Principal) 5.43 5.47 5.55 5.67School environment (Teacher) 6.82 6.87 6.94 7.03Principal evaluation by teachers 4.52 4.56 4.62 4.73Quality of library 5.03 5.13 5.27 5.38Intra-school cohesion 4.62 4.64 4.69 4.78

O eratin conditions Princi al 4.81 4.89 5.00 5.14Operating conditions (Teacher) 5.11 5.19 5.35 5.52Equipment 4.35 4.53 4.81 4.99Facilities 5.08 5.19 5.34 5.46Principals training 4.73 4.83 4.96 5.04Teacher uses technology (ICT) 4.73 4.91 5.14 5.32Participatory learning tecniques 4.84 4.89 4.98 5.09Formal teachin tecni ues 4.93 4.87 4.75 4.66Teachers training 5.14 5.19 5.26 5.31Teachers working conditions 4.95 5.06 5.20 5.28

39



40/56

Below



BasicCultural environment 4.66 4.86 5.12 5.38Parents involvement 6.00 6.23 6.36 6.41

. . . .SES 4.73 4.84 5.12 5.41School environment (Principal) 5.43 5.47 5.55 5.67School environment (Teacher) 6.82 6.87 6.94 7.03Principal evaluation by teachers 4.52 4.56 4.62 4.73Quality of library 5.03 5.13 5.27 5.38Intra-school cohesion 4.62 4.64 4.69 4.78

O eratin conditions Princi al 4.81 4.89 5.00 5.14Operating conditions (Teacher) 5.11 5.19 5.35 5.52Equipment 4.35 4.53 4.81 4.99Facilities 5.08 5.19 5.34 5.46Principals training 4.73 4.83 4.96 5.04Teacher uses technology (ICT) 4.73 4.91 5.14 5.32Participatory learning tecniques 4.84 4.89 4.98 5.09Formal teachin tecni ues 4.93 4.87 4.75 4.66Teachers training 5.14 5.19 5.26 5.31Teachers working conditions 4.95 5.06 5.20 5.28

40


41/56

Odds ratio for the random intercept hierarchical linear model. Dependent

variable: Likelihood of exclusion in Reading and Math. 4th and 8th grade.

.

IndependentVariables4th grade 8th grade

Reading Math Reading Math

Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69

White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81

Overage student 2.06 1.95 2.04 2.18

SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99

School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89

Number of students 1,569,6621,569,662 1,565,3921,565,392 1,396,0861,396,086 1,359,3751,359,375

Number of schools 37,26337,263 37,24437,244 27,37727,377 27,37827,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)

Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level **Centralized variables

Observaton: If the coefficient is greater than 1, then the variable is

associated with a higher probability of exclusion


42/56



.



White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81


SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99


Number of students 1,569,662 1,565,392 1,396,086 1,359,375

Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)





43/56



.



Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69

Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81


SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99



Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378

Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)





44/56



.



Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69

White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71PardoPardo 0.670.67 0.660.66 0.840.84 0.810.81


SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99









45/56



.



Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69

White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81

OverageOverage studentstudent 2.062.06 1.951.95 2.042.04 2.182.18

SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99









46/56



.



Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69

White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81


SESSES 1.051.05 1.011.01 1.031.03 0.990.99

SchoolSchool SESSES**** 0.550.55 0.550.55 0.650.65 0.640.64Proportion of overagestudents at school** 0.75 0.89 0.73 0.89







Odd ti f th d i t t hi hi l li d l D d t


47/56



.



Men 1.48 0.91 1.77 0.69

White 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.71Pardo 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.81


SES 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.99

School SES** 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.64ProportionProportion ofof overageoveragestudentsstudents atat schoolschool**** 0.750.75 0.890.89 0.730.73 0.890.89









48/56

p p


Prova Brasil 2007 (continued).

Independent variables4th grade 8th grade


Cultural environment 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.90Parental involvement 0.84 0.87 1.05 1.08Student motivation 1.01 1.01 0.92 0.87School environment (Principal) 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.96School environment (Teachers) 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.98

e

expected

that allcoeficients

werer nc pa eva uat on y teac ers . . . .

Quality of the library 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99Intra-school cohesion 1.00* 1.00* 0.99 1.00*Operating conditions (Principal) 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98

smaller

than 1.

. . . .Equipment 1.00* 0.98 0.99 0.98Facilities 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01*Principal's training 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99Teacher uses technology (ICT) 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.98Participatory learning techniques 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.01

Formal teaching techniques 1.02 1.00* 1.03 0.99Teacher's training 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.01Teacher's working condition 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98

, , , , , , , ,Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)

Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level 48



49/56

p p


Prova Brasil 2007 (continued).

Independent variables4th grade 8th grade


Cultural environment 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.90Parental involvement 0.84 0.87 1.05 1.08Student motivation 1.01 1.01 0.92 0.87School environment (Principal) 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.96School environment (Teachers) 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.98

e

expected

that allcoeficients

werer nc pa eva uat on y teac ers . . . .

Quality of the library 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99Intra-school cohesion 1.00* 1.00* 0.99 1.00*Operating conditions (Principal) 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98

smaller

than 1.

. . . .Equipment 1.00* 0.98 0.99 0.98Facilities 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01*Principal's training 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99Teacher uses technology (ICT) 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.98Participatory learning techniques 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.01

Formal teaching techniques 1.02 1.00* 1.03 0.99Teacher's training 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.01Teacher's working condition 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98

, , , , , , , ,Number of schools 37,263 37,244 27,377 27,378Source: Microdata from Brasil 2007 (INEP/MEC)

Parameter is non statistically significant at 5% level 49


50/56

IMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONS

50


51/56

Reca

Our definition of school exclusion was basedon reading and math performance of pupils;

51


52/56

Reca


We studied determinants;

52


53/56

Reca


We studied determinants;

Our approach was based on latent traitsinvolving characteristics of students, teachers,principals and schools.

53


54/56

What determines school exclusion?

Personal attributes (gender, race) Socioeconomic back round arents

involvement, cultural environment)

School delay and peer effects Measures of teachers, school and principals

quality do matter

54


55/56


56/56

AcknowledgmentAcknowledgment UNESCO Office in Brasilia for the funding.

THANK YOU!THANK YOU!

[email protected]@ufmg.br

[email protected]

56

cies west 2011 raquel et al final

Documents