teacher certification in indonesia: a confusion of means ... · teacher certification in indonesia:...

Teacher Certification in Indonesia: A Confusion of Means and Ends

Mohamad Fahmi, Achmad Maulana and Arief Anshory Yusuf

Plan of the Talk

2

INTRODUCTION

3

Introduction

4

Introduction

5

Introduction

6

Purpose of Study

7

TEACHER CERTIFICATION IN INDONESIA

8

Teacher Certification: Rationale

9

Source: Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), taken from: Jalal et al (2009)

Score Performance of Indonesian 15-Year-Old Students (PISA 2006)


10

Primary Teacher Absence Rate in Public Schools 2002-2003

Taken from: Jalal et al (2009)


11

Source: World Education Indicators 2007, Table 5.h.i., p. 144. Taken from: Jalal et al (2009)

Comparison of Teacher Salaries across Countries by Level of Education (in US Dollars)

Teacher Certification: Objective

12

Teacher Certification: Organization

13


14


Central Level

• A Consortium for Teacher Certification (KSG) : Directorate General of Higher Education, the Directorate General for PMPTK (Peningkatanmutu pendidik dan tenaga kependidikan), MoRA and LPTKs.

Provincial Level

• Provincial education office and Lembaga Penjaminan MutuPendidikan (LPMP)

Kabupaten/Kota Level

• Local education office

15

Coordinator in MoNE


Central Level

• Directorate General for Islamic Education: The Directorate of Islamic Schools, Directorate of Islamic Education and Directorate of Religious and Islamic Boarding Schools

Provincial Level

• MoRA’s provincial office

Kabupaten/Kota Level

• Local MoRA’s office

16

Coordinator in MoRA

Teacher Certification: Requirement

17

Teacher Certification: Selection Criteria

18

Teacher Certification: Assessment

19

Teacher Certification: Assessment

20

Teacher Certification: Cost

21

Cumulative Targets for Teacher Certification Program to 2015

Taken from Jalal et al (2009)

IDR MillionIDR Million

Teacher Certification: Funding

22

Teacher Certification: Challenge

23

Teacher Certification: Challenge

24

METHODOLOGY

25

Research Question

26

Research Methodology

27

Data Collection

28

Sampling Frame

We purposively choose teachers from both certified and non-certified based on :

1. Teachers must teach final year student in 2009 or earlier

2. They are class primary teacher

3. A teacher is included in the treatment if the application for the teacher certificate is approved prior to 2010

29

Summary Statistics

30

Variables Obs. mean s.d. Min. Max.

Already certified in 2009 290 0.321 0.468 0 1

Education and experience

Years of education 294 15.480 1.021 12 18

Teaching experience (years) 294 24.014 6.681 2 37

Teachers portfolio

Training experience (dummy)

on school management 294 0.323 0.468 0 1

on teaching 294 0.867 0.340 0 1

on specific subjects 294 0.820 0.385 0 1

Active in social organizations (dummy) 294 0.493 0.501 0 1

Ever received awards in teaching (dummy) 294 0.180 0.385 0 1

Other characteristics

Gender (female = 1, 0 otherwise) 294 0.571 0.496 0 1

School size (number of classrooms) 294 9.500 7.614 2 46

School area (urban=1, 0=rural) 294 0.531 0.500 0 1

Source: GDN-UNPAD 2010 Teachers survey

Estimating the Impact

31

Before certification (ex-ante)

After certification (ex-post)

Certified teachers A C Non-certified teachers B D

• Comparing C and D will be biased since the program participation is not

completely random. Teacher with better qualifications, hence more likely to participate,

• Acknowledging the above circumstance, Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) developed Propensity Score Matching (PSM) that could minimize the endogenity problem to program participation.

1. Estimate Logit Specification

32

2. We utilize the above model to calculate teacher’s propensity score, predicted probability.

3. We apply the matching by pairing the propensity score between teachers from two groups using various matching algorithms.

Propensity Score Matching

Illustration of Difference-in-Difference Method

33

Difference in Difference

• Student’s exam score of both certified and non-certified teachers improve. • The rate of the improvement is higher for the teachers who were certified in 2009. •The difference in the rate of improvement can be interpreted as the impact of the certification in 2009. This impact is called Difference-in-Difference

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

34

Logistic Model of Certification

35

Variables Coef-

ficient standard

error

Marginal

effects standard

error

Education and experience

Years of education 0.975 0.222*** 0.167 0.034***

Teaching experience (years) 0.220 0.043*** 0.038 0.006***

Teachers portfolio

Training experience (dummy)

on school management 0.256 0.316 0.045 0.057

on teaching 0.377 0.458 0.060 0.067

on specific subjects 0.028 0.404 0.005 0.069

Active in social organizations (dummy) 0.043 0.306 0.007 0.053

Ever received awards in teaching (dummy) 0.561 0.369 0.106 0.075

Other characteristics

Gender (female = 1, 0 otherwise) 0.017 0.319 0.003 0.055

School size (number of classrooms) 0.037 0.020* 0.006 0.003*

School area (urban=1, 0=rural) -0.331 0.343 -0.057 0.059

Constant -22.395 3.966

Likelihood ratio 77.79***

Log likelihood -143.05

Pseudo R2 0.2138

Number of observation 290

Note: ***) is significant at 1%, **) is significant at 5%, *) is significant at 10%

What the logit tells us?

36

The Matched and unmatched difference in the student exam score in 2010 by various matching algorithm (1)

37

Note: ATT stands for Average Treatment Effect of the Treated. It is the estimated difference due to treatment, in this case, due to certification. *: Standard error for ATT is estimated using bootstrap with 1000 replications.Source: Author’s calculation

Math Sample Treated Controls Difference S.E.*

Nearest-neighbor Unmatched 7.438 7.386 0.052 0.137

ATT 7.449 7.571 -0.122 0.243

Caliper Unmatched 7.438 7.386 0.052 0.137

ATT 7.454 7.623 -0.169 0.237

Kernel Unmatched 7.438 7.386 0.052 0.137

ATT 7.449 7.446 0.003 0.182

Radius Unmatched 7.438 7.386 0.052 0.137

ATT 7.449 7.386 0.063 0.147

Ties Unmatched 7.438 7.386 0.052 0.137

ATT 7.449 7.565 -0.116 0.243


38

Bahasa Sample Treated Controls Difference S.E.*


ATT 6.918 6.938 -0.020 0.138


ATT 6.931 6.951 -0.019 0.142


ATT 6.918 6.916 0.003 0.094


ATT 6.918 6.854 0.064 0.084

Ties Unmatched 6.917 6.854 0.063 0.078

ATT 6.918 6.933 -0.015 0.131



39


Math & Bahasa Sample Treated Controls Difference S.E.*


ATT 7.184 7.254 -0.071 0.161


ATT 7.193 7.287 -0.094 0.168


ATT 7.184 7.184 -0.001 0.126


ATT 7.184 7.127 0.057 0.106

Ties Unmatched 7.177 7.127 0.050 0.100

ATT 7.184 7.249 -0.065 0.169

Matching results

40

Simple equation to estimate DiD:

41

is the student’s exam score of teacher i in period t (2008 and 2010)is whether teacher i was certified in 2009 (1 if certified and 0 otherwise)is the time period, 1 if 2010 and 0 if 2008.is the error term.

Difference in Difference Estimate

42

Math Bahasa Math & Bahasa

Constant 6.516*** 6.828*** 6.672***

(0.115) (0.077) (0.089)

Certified in 2009 (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) 0.088 -0.072 0.008

(0.336) (0.225) (0.261)

Period (1 if 2010, 0 if 2008) 0.871*** 0.027 0.456***

(0.146) (0.098) (0.114)

Certified Period -0.063 0.117 0.020

(0.428) (0.286) (0.333)

Note: ***) is significant at 1%, **) is significant at 5%, *) is significant at 10% Number in parentheses is standard error.

Result for DiD

43

Why the teacher certification does not have the expected impact?

44

Policy Recommendations

45

Practical Version

46

Practical Version

47

THE END - THANK YOU

48

teacher certification in indonesia: a confusion of means ... · teacher certification in indonesia:...

Documents