|
Educational
opportunity:
El Salvador’s barriers to achieving equality persist
Kristin Rosekrans
Harvard University
In
this article, the author, who lives and works in El Salvador, analyzes
the different levels of educational opportunity attained in this
country, barriers to improving equity, and the potential effects on
equity of current policies and programs. She offers a framework for
analyzing educational opportunity as well as a model for improving
equity through compensatory strategies to enhance educational quality
for the poorest sectors.
Overview
In
the past few decades, Latin American countries have undergone major
transformations politically, economically, and socially – changes
that, logically, are reflected in their education systems. Although
there is a wide disparity of differences in the countries, some
tendencies are reflected throughout the region, such as political
systems moving from dictatorships towards more democratic systems,
education reforms implemented shortly after this shift intending to
strengthen democracy, and an emphasis on expanding access to basic
education. Many of these efforts have been influenced by
international organizations such as the World Bank and UNESCO, and
developed under the frameworks for action laid out in international
summits such as the World Declaration on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand and its ten-year follow up in Dakar,
Senegal.
The declaration puts emphasis on the
need to guarantee access to a quality education for all children. It
states that “basic learning needs…comprise both essential tools… and
the basic learning content…required by human beings to be able to
survive, to develop their full capacities, to live and work in
dignity, to participate fully in development, to improve the quality
of their lives, to make informed decisions, and to continue learning”
(UNESCO, 2000, p. 15). In this declaration and Dakar’s action plan,
there is a clear call for education policy aimed at improving access
and quality for the whole population, and with special attention for
the marginalized sectors and “children in difficult circumstances”
(UNESCO, 2000, p. 15). In line with these guidelines, Latin American
countries throughout the last decade have used strategies that appear
to be aimed at improving access and quality for these sectors.
Although the reforms have taken a different shape in each context,
some of their common threads have been: (a) decentralization, (b)
increasing community participation and school autonomy, (c) improving
access and, (d) various initiatives to improve quality such as
curricular reform and training and incentives for teachers.
However, while there seems to be clear
evidence that access has improved in the majority of Latin American
countries, it is much less clear that quality has improved. Providing
schools, desks, materials, and teachers for populations who had been
deprived of these basic inputs, is certainly one step closer to
achieving basic learning needs. Passing management to a local level,
to communities who previously had no say in any educational decisions,
may be one step closer creating a democratic system and increasing
parental involvement. Reforming the curriculum to a more
constructivist approach and training teachers to employ this
curriculum may improve the practice of some teachers – especially
those with enough basic knowledge and pedagogical skills to add this
to their repertoire of teaching practices. For the least competent
teachers, who tend to serve the most marginalized children, it may not
do much towards helping these children to develop their full
capacities and to improve the quality of their lives. In order to
have impact at this level, for this population, policies and programs
may have to take on a new form.
In the context of Latin America, as in
the case in many regions of the world, it is important to not overlook
issues of equity. High levels of inequality, often characterized by a
small portion of the population controlling the majority of the
resources, often leads to a lack of political stability and stunted
overall social development. It was the high level of inequality that
lead up to El Salvador’s civil war, as also occurred in many other
Latin American countries throughout the past few decades. As argued
in this paper, access to educational opportunity is very important in
order to create a more equitable society. It is not, however, the
only essential factor: A move towards a more equitable society entails
policy changes in the economic, political, and other social sector
dimensions. Yet, moving towards more equality of educational
opportunity is a step towards a more equitable society, hence a higher
overall level of social development and more political stability.
While assessing whether or not
educational opportunity has improved in a particular country or
region, it is important to be clear both about the criteria for what
constitutes equality of educational opportunity and about the criteria
for assessing the best way to achieve equality. In this paper, I
attempt to do this by analyzing the barriers to educational equality
of one particular Latin American country, El Salvador, through a
framework of educational opportunity that is multi-layered and on a
continuum. Furthermore, I propose a model for the necessary
conditions for providing equality of opportunity and criteria for
assessing and working towards this model.
The hypothesis of this paper is that
that to improve educational opportunity, the most marginalized sectors
of society must have the possibility to change their life
circumstances, and that this is not possible without policies based on
a more complex model of equality of educational opportunity that goes
beyond mere access to formal schooling. This does not rest on the
assumption that access is not important; rather that education should
offer the possibility for individuals to transform their lives. This
is not the case, however, for the many children repeating grades,
dropping out of school in the early grades, and never completing
secondary education. What makes a difference for these children may
not be attending school, but the type of school they attend.
The first part of the paper lays out the
framework for analyzing educational opportunity. The second part is a
discussion of the degree to which educational opportunity has been
achieved at each level in El Salvador and an identification of the
possible causes and barriers to achieving equality of educational
opportunity. This is followed by an analysis of the policy responses
to this inequality and a discussion of other policy options. The last
section draws from research-based literature of school improvement and
school effectiveness to offer a model for improving equality of
educational opportunity in El Salvador.
Policy decisions always imply trade-offs
in terms of use of resources, which is why these decisions should be
well informed by research. The criteria used in this paper to analyze
policy options and make policy and program recommendations for
improving educational opportunity are: (a) the factors that, if
addressed, will make the most difference on equality according to the
evidence of research-based literature; (b) the potential effectiveness
of a policy for achieving equality based on evidence from
research-based literature, and (c) the economic feasibility and
trade-offs in the broader context of the goals of the education
system.
Equality of Educational
Opportunity
It is important to take an in depth look
at equality of educational opportunity while thinking about barriers
to equality at the level of policy. First of all, it is important to
be clear about what we mean by both equality and
opportunity. Secondly, while exploring policy options, if
educational opportunity is seen in a general sense, rather than in a
differentiated way, policy responses will also be general.
Joseph Farrell (1993) defines equity
as referring to social justice and fairness. It is of a subjective
moral and ethical nature, which “involves value judgments and
differing understandings of what is normal or inevitable” (p.158).
Equality, however, “deals with actual patterns in which something
is distributed among members of a particular group” (Farrell, 1993, p.
158). For example, while there is a very unequal distribution
of income in most countries, some may consider this equitable
based on the belief that different jobs merit different remuneration.
Somebody else, however, may assess this unequal distribution as
inequitable, and argue from a more Marxist ideology that people should
be paid according to their individual efforts. One the one hand, this
distinction can be helpful in public policy discussion as it allows
each individual to explicitly put forth her own opinion of what
constitutes equity while analyzing and discussing data on equality
(such as years of schooling, achievement scores, or any other
quantifiable variable). On the other hand, it points to the challenge
of public policy decision as it is highly contingent on ideology and
personal moral and ethical beliefs, rather than on objective data.
The model presented here is one based on equality of educational
opportunity, meaning that it permits an objective analysis of what is
acquired or achieved by different members of society based on what is
available to them. It assumes that what is equitable is that
all children, regardless of their socioeconomic and cultural group,
should have equal opportunities to change their life
circumstances.
Various researchers and educational
specialists have offered models of educational opportunity. Joseph
Farrell (1993) offers a four level model of educational opportunity:
(a) access/input, or equal probability of entering the school
system, (b) survival, or equal probability of completing a
cycle of schooling including primary, secondary or higher, (c)
output, or equal probability of learning achievement, and (d)
outcome, or equal probability in life conditions such as income,
status, and political power (Farrell, 1993). Fernando Reimers (2000)
offers a five level model: (a) the opportunity to enroll in first
grade, (b) the opportunity to complete first grade with enough success
to go onto the next grade, (c) the opportunity to continue each
educational cycle, (d) the opportunity to acquire comparable skills
and knowledge to peers, and (e) the opportunity to expand social and
economic life chances based on what one learns. Both models are
helpful in their notion of sorting points: children, based on their
economic and social conditions, are “sorted” at different stages on
the educational path. Farrell’s model is helpful in offering
simplifying terms such as input, output, survival and outcome to label
each level or sorting point. Reimers’ model introduces an important
sorting point: the completion of first grade, which, in many
developing countries, sorts out thousands of children each year. The
model that I offer builds upon both of these models, yet employs some
distinctions in terminology and concepts. I introduce sub-levels
(numbered 1-10) within each level, and indicate sorting points and
obstacles by arrows. (see Figure 1) The arrow to the left represents
the direct relationship between education level and higher earning
potential.
The first level, attendance
opportunity, is used instead of access because it is a term that
is inclusive of other conditions besides geographical access.
For children to have the opportunity to attend school, they must not
only have geographical access but also sufficient economic resources
to attend and parents willing to them to school. This is the same for
the level of secondary education. The arrow to the right at this
first level of opportunity illustrates the loop of repetition, which
often keeps children eternally restricted from going on to the next
level of opportunity, often eventually due to drop out. There is a
sorting point before going on to the next level that is desertion from
the system, illustrated by the arrow to the left of the first level.
Figure 1.
Multi-leveled model of educational opportunity
The second level of
opportunity, completion opportunity, refers to the opportunity
to complete basic education and then secondary education. Again,
children can become caught within a cycle of repetition at this level
(illustrated by the arrow to the right), leading to a high number of
overage children in the education system. Eventually, however, the
children who make it to this level will have the opportunity to
complete a cycle. They may exit the pyramid of opportunity after
completion of a cycle. The sorting point here, where many of these
multiple repeaters may be, is for those who do not make it to the next
level: learning opportunity. Many children will complete basic
education, and some even secondary, but the skills and knowledge they
acquire may be minimal due to the poor educational quality.
Furthermore, children may assimilate content yet not higher order
thinking skills. Therefore, this level of opportunity has two
different sublevels: achievement, and skills and knowledge. One level
is reflected in achievement scores measured by standardized tests, and
the other concerns thinking and
analyzing skills and values, more likely
measured by their success in life. Success is reflected in the highest
level of opportunity, life opportunity, which is also
sub-divided. Completion of higher education is linked with life
opportunity. Status, income, and political power may have to do with
the development of different and higher intelligences such as, social
ability and analytic capacity, as well as family and social
connections which can be influenced by where one goes to school. In
this model, the highest level of life opportunity is social
transformation. This transcends individual life opportunity, and
puts as the ideal the transformation of social structures. This is
relevant for an education model: if a model is based on individual
achievement rather than transforming social conditions, a society will
continue to be based on a system of differentiated level of
opportunity. In turn, if one makes it to the highest level, while
maintaining or developing the will and capacity to work towards
creating a more socioeconomic inclusive society, entrenched structures
based on inequality may be transformed towards more equal structures.
Life opportunity, in its broadest sense, can be conceived of as the
opportunity to transform one’s own life and contribute to societal
transformation.
It is
important to mention that this model is based on the formal education
system and does not take into account the other possibilities and
options for education and training for both young people and adults.
For example, adult education programs and vocational training offer
ways to gain access to better life options, and there are
non-government organizations that offer non-traditional forms of
education that operate on a different time frame, sometimes more
adequate to the living situation of the participating population.
While this paper is concerned primarily with policy changes in the
formal education system, it is important to take into consideration
these other valuable options and seek to strengthen and complement
them.
The Marginalized
Population of El Salvador
El
Salvador is a country that has been characterized by extreme
inequality, which was the primary cause of its twelve-year civil war
ending in 1992. The marginalized population of El Salvador is about
40% of the population. This is the population that rarely makes it to
the second level of opportunity. In 1999, 41% of the population lived
in poverty, and the same percentage without drinkable water (Rivas,
2000). Rivas also describes that of this poor population, 17% lived
in extreme poverty, meaning they were unable to cover their basic
needs of food, clothing, and housing. This poorest 20% of the
population earned 5.7% of the national income in 1999, while the
wealthiest 20% of the population received 48% (Rivas, 2000). While
there are marginalized sectors in the urban areas, with 10% living in
extreme poverty, the rural population (42% of the total population) is
where the poverty is concentrated. More than half of this population
lives in poverty, and 27% in extreme poverty (DIGESTYC, 2000).
Economic options for this population are
scarce. Maquilas, or sweat shops have become a large employment
source, with free zones or tax free areas extending into the rural
areas. Exports from maquilas have increased from 18.3% in 1991 to 43%
in 1997, while traditional agricultural products have declined from
37.8% to 23% (Murcia, Paniagua, Quezada, and Rosekrans, 1999). While
it is often necessary to be literate for these factory jobs, more than
a basic education is not required. While analyzing educational
opportunity, it is important to keep in mind this economic context:
there are few incentives for the rural populations to attend school
unless they have the intention of moving to an urban area for work.
Furthermore, education policy should not be considered in isolation
from other national policy issues. Improving equity in a country
should be the prerogative of the government, incorporating all
ministries, as well as of the private sector.
Educational Opportunity
in El Salvador
Attendance Opportunity
This
first level of opportunity, the opportunity to attend primary school,
is contingent on several conditions: (a) having a school
geographically near enough to where one lives, (b) being sufficiently
healthy to attend, and (c) having the economic resources necessary.
Although this last factor has not changed in El Salvador, there has
been substantial improvement in access for both pre-primary and
primary school attendance in the past decade. This is primarily due
to the implementation of a World Bank financed program called EDUCO
(the Community Managed Schools Program). Before 1991, 68% of urban
schools and 42% of rural schools offered pre-primary school, with only
21% of the children age 4 to 6 enrolled (Ministerio de Educación,
2000c). In the past decade, and with an annual increase of 212
sections, this enrolment increased greatly. In 1999, 35% of rural
children age 4 to 6 were attending school while this figure was 59%
for urban children of the same age (DIGESTYC, 2000). This lower
attendance for the rural population has to do with geographical access
as well as other factors. This is partly reflected in the difference
between enrolment figures and attendance: while 28 children are
enrolled per class on average, an average of 18 may actually attend
class on a given day (Ministerio de Educación, 2000c). The reasons
for not attending school between the ages of 4 and 6, however, are
different than the reasons for not attending primary school. Only 16%
of 4-6 year olds do not attend school due to it being too expensive or
because of reasons related to the home, while 65% do not go because of
age (DIGESTYC, 2000). On the one hand this survey response could
indicate that the child is too young to walk to the nearest school,
which may constitute a geographical access problem. On the other
hand, it could reflect a situation that has to do more with cultural
norms than with poverty or geographical location. Only 8% in this age
group report not attending due to other reasons (DIGESTYC, 2000).
The increase in
primary school attendance, while not as drastic as the increase for
pre-primary attendance, shows substantial improvement. In 1991,
before the implementation of EDUCO, 65.36% of the rural children
between the ages of 7 and 15 years attended school, where as in 1995,
the figure rose to 73.5% and in 1999 to 77.6% (DIGESTYC, 1993, 1996,
2000). In 1999, 91% of urban children from the ages of 7 to 15
attended school. The national net enrolment rate reported by the
Ministry of Education for 1998 was 84% for first through sixth grade
and 42% for sixth through ninth grade (Ministerio de Educación,
2000a). This disparity in data is partly explained by the high number
of overage children in primary school. For this population, between
geographical access and economic conditions, the latter seems to
outweigh the former; in other words, the opportunity cost for a family
to send their child to school may be the principal factor for this
problem of attendance. In looking at the reasons for not attending
school, roughly one-third of rural children (age 7-15) cite the reason
“muy caro” or very expensive, as a reason for not attending school. In
addition, 7 out of 10 children do not attend school for other reasons,
such as: the need to work, reasons related to the home, and parents
not wanting them to go to school.
In terms of secondary education, the net
enrolment for the urban population in 1997 was 55.2% and for the rural
population 4.8% (Fernandez and Carrasco, 1998). Although according to
the 1999 national survey, 34% of rural 16 to 18 year olds attend
school (DIGESTYC, 2000), many of these adolescents are still in
primary education. Only 9% of 19-23 year olds were attending school,
either at the primary or secondary level. Roughly eight out of every
ten adolescents (age 16-18) do not attend for economically related
reasons. However, it is interesting to note that 17% of adolescents
of this age, and 26% of adolescents age 13 to 15, do not attend school
for “other reasons” (DIGESTYC, 2000). It could be the case that these
other reasons have to do with not having geographical access to their
grade level, as many rural schools only offer sections up to a sixth
grade level. Out of all of the children who begin primary school,
only 6 out of 10 finish fifth grade, indicating that there are many
factors –principally economic- that cause a child to abandon school.
The data reflects three major points relevant to this first level of
opportunity: (a) Children tend to enroll in school at a later age in
rural areas, possibly due to cultural factors and a lack of access,
(b) poverty, or opportunity cost, seems to be the principal barrier to
the opportunity to attending primary and secondary school, and (c)
geographical access is also a likely barrier to attending secondary
school and the last cycle of basic education grades six through nine.
Completion
Opportunity
The
opportunity to complete primary school or secondary school is still
beyond the majority of the marginalized population. In the rural
population, one in every three adults cannot read and write, while for
the urban population this is one in every ten adults (DIGESTYC,
2000). The average level of schooling for the urban population is
6.69, while for the rural population it is less than half this: 3.18
years of school completed. (DIGESTYC, 2000). Further stratification
can be identified by looking at income levels: in the rural
population, the poorest 25% have completed two years of schooling
while the wealthiest 25% have completed 4.3 years. This is still
lower than the poorest 25% of the urban population that have completed
4.6 years (Reimers, 2000). This shows the stark disparity both
between income levels, as well as the general divide in completion
opportunity between the rural and urban populations.
Within
the three cycles of basic education first through third grade, fourth
through sixth, and sixth through ninth grade, it is often in the first
cycle of basic education where children lose this opportunity to
complete their basic schooling. Again, those who make it past this
level are almost always the wealthiest. Only 20% of the poorest 40%
of the population have completed primary school and 8% secondary,
while 85% of wealthiest 10% of the population have had the opportunity
to complete primary school and 69% to complete secondary (Reimers,
2000). This low completion of secondary education has serious
implications for social exclusion, as “those who have not completed
this level are likely to be seriously excluded from opportunities to
participate in any meaningful way in labor markets or social and
political organizations” (Reimers, 2000, p. 65). Furthermore, these
figures are representative of the structural inequality. The
likelihood that the children of the poorest families will have the
opportunity to complete their schooling, especially secondary school,
is much lower than it is for the wealthiest families. Studies have
confirmed parental education as the strongest predictor of student
achievement. This strong influence of parental education as an
“indicator of the intergenerational transmission of educational
inequality” is something that “has been documented in most countries
for which evidence is available” (Reimers, 2000, p. 77). This points
to the difficulty of breaking the cycle of poverty.
There are
various factors that cause these poorest sectors to be sorted out
before having the opportunity to complete their schooling. Repetition
is one factor that is both a cause for lack of completion opportunity
and at the same time a symptom of a deficiency in quality. Of the 58%
of Salvadoran children who finish primary school, a very high
proportion of these repeat a grade at least once. In 1996, 13.2% of
the poorest 10% of students were repeating a grade, while this figure
was 3.9 for the wealthiest 10% (Carrasco, 1999). Repetition in El
Salvador has not decreased in the past decade: In 1991, the
repetition rate for first grade was 17%, while in 1997 it was 18%. In
second grade the repetition rate was 8% and 7% respectively (Ministerio
de Educación, 2000a). For 1998, repetition for the first three grades
combined was reported at 8.54% for the rural population and 6.68% for
the urban. While this is the official figure, it is likely that the
real figure is higher, as in Latin American countries the actual
repetition rate at the primary level is often likely to be at least a
third more than what governments report (Eisemon, 1997, p. 20). These
figures do illustrate, however, the challenge of children getting
through the first year of school.
High
levels of repetition lead to high amounts of overage children in
school. In 1999, there were 250,000 students that were in grade
levels not corresponding to their age (CIDEP, 1999). In the year
2000, 15% of the children in first through sixth grade were overage,
according to the Ministry of Education. This creates a serious
instructional challenge, as children are at different developmental
levels and present different needs. Furthermore, this leads to a
sense of failure, and often leads to drop out (Eisemon, 1997). For
the rural population, drop out rates are highest in the first three
grades, being 5.88 for this level, 4.49 for fourth through sixth
grade, and 3.98 for the third cycle (CIDEP, 1999).
There are
many reasons for repetition, of which poverty and the low quality of
education are primary reasons. Eisemon (1997) addresses these causes
at three levels, all of which are applicable to El Salvador: child and
family characteristics, teaching and learning characteristics in the
school, and education policy. In terms of the school level, poor
texts and teaching, large class size, and teacher absenteeism all
present obstacles for students to effectively learn enough to be
promoted. Double shifts including reduced class hours and overworked
teachers, strategies such as multi-grade classrooms, and lack of
adaptation of school calendars to agricultural production cycles, are
policies that exacerbate these obstacles. In terms of family, the
opportunity cost is very high for a poor family to send their child to
school, especially if he or she is not learning. During the time of
the harvest, many families opt to have their children help with
production instead of attend school. Due to the high poverty level of
many families, many children lack appropriate nutritional and health
conditions – although this is not usually the main cause of absence.
The “readiness” of the child can be a major factor for repetition,
especially for disadvantaged families. Children often lack the early
stimulation and prior learning necessary for their success in primary
school (Eisemon, 1997; Myers, 1989; Young, 1996).
While
repetition is a serious problem for the repeaters themselves, as
children are caught in a loop that does not allow them to progress to
the next level of opportunity or simply exit from the system
altogether, it also presents a serious problem for the government.
For example, the economic cost in regions such as Latin America for
primary school repetition was estimated (in 1990) as being more than
double the whole of multilateral assistance to the education sector (Eisemon,
1997, p. 17). Repetition is a structural problem, meaning that it is
embedded in the different layers and dimensions of the society and
education system, and recognizing it as such permits aiming policies
towards structural solution. This type of response would be a more
effective way of addressing the problem of repetition.
In sum,
in thinking about completion opportunity, it is important to consider
that: (a) completion of primary school for the poorest sector is as
low as two in ten children and one in ten for secondary school, (b)
completing secondary school is almost always a condition for social
mobility in any meaningful sense, and (c) repetition is a strong
barrier to completion opportunity and is a structural problem with its
roots in family conditions, educational quality, and educational
policy.
Learning Opportunity
To have the opportunity to learn means
that even if a child comes from a disadvantaged background (of
uneducated parents, extreme poverty, and a lack of early education,
the child can obtain the same knowledge and skills as other children
who come from more advantaged origins. At the more basic level, this
can be measured in terms of achievement scores, which test for how
well a child has learned the curricular content. Other learning goals
are often not measured by these tests, such as “self-esteem, learning
how to learn, advanced thinking skills, problem solving, and
decision-making” (Farrell, 1993, p. 28). Being a good citizen, a
necessary condition for working towards social transformation, is
another one of these frequently unmeasured goals. Yet these
characteristics are often the most important for success at the level
of life opportunity. If a child completes school, but does not
acquire knowledge, skills, and these characteristics, the child has
not fully had the opportunity to learn. By assimilating only
curricular content, the child has only had a partial opportunity.
Full opportunity can be understood as assimilation of curricular
content as well as the development of life knowledge and skills.
A school that provides full learning
opportunity usually requires components such as good school conditions
including adequate infrastructure, safety, materials, a low
teacher-student ratio, school leadership and organization, an
appropriate and challenging curriculum, and well-trained and supported
teachers. These could be considered some of the key ingredients for an
effective school.
In El Salvador, some of these conditions
are partially met, while others are far from being met – especially
for the most marginalized sectors. The number of teachers has not
increased accordingly with the enrolment increase. The number of
students for each teacher was 47 in 1997, up from 38 in 1995
(Fernandez and Carrasco, 2000). The shortage of teachers is greater
in the rural areas, especially at the level of secondary school
(Fernandez and Carrasco, 2000). Also, the level of preparation of the
teachers is higher for the urban areas than for the rural areas: while
only 12% of rural teachers have a university degree, this is true for
37% of urban teachers (Reimers, 1995). The majority of rural teachers
have completed a three-year training program, yet these teachers often
serve grades for which they have not prepared. Those who do get
specialized training often seek employment with the private, urban
sector: In a recent study to track 192 teachers trained in basic
education, only 10% of these teachers were employed in rural schools,
while 68.4% were employed in private schools (Barillas and Gamero,
2000).
As mentioned, achievement scores reflect
a certain degree of educational opportunity and inequalities can be
seen in the disparities between achievement scores between sectors.
The national average in the high school standardized test (PAES) was
5.0 on a scale of 1-10 for 1999, while this was 7.5 for private
schools (Ministerio de Educación, 2001). Similarly, a study by
Carrasco (1999) found a significant correlation between math and
language achievement scores and socioeconomic condition, where the
disadvantaged students scored up to four points below other students
on a scale of 1-10. A more recent study by Marin (2001) found
advantages of urban students over rural students in reading
comprehension and language skills. The same study showed that rural
teachers were more likely to have double shifts, less likely to plan
together, and reflect more of a gap between their theory and their
practice - hence using outdated teaching methods. Even though as of
1995 there is a new curriculum with improved content relevancy and a
constructivist focus, school practices have not changed beyond a
superficial level (Fernandez and Carrasco, 2000). The most poorly
trained teachers who serve the marginalized populations face the
biggest challenge in implementing this new curricular focus. The
teacher profile outlined in this curriculum is radically different
from the profile of these teachers, who are poorly educated, poorly
trained, overworked, and lack the time and support for meeting these
expectations. While these teachers are the most in need of training
in order to meet the new requirements, they have not received more
training and support than those teachers who are already closer to the
profile.
As mentioned, it is difficult to measure
the development of other skills and knowledge related to life
opportunity that is not assessed in standardized tests. However, some
factors that contribute to their development can be identified, which
are: a teaching methodology that encourages reflective and independent
thinking, methodologies and laboratories that help to develop interest
and scientific knowledge, the opportunity to learn a foreign language,
and the ability to use a computer and internet. None of these
opportunities are present in the public schools of the marginalized
population (Carrasco, 1999).
The situation of disadvantage in terms
of educational quality is even more critical in the light of research
that reflects that quality matters the most for the lowest
socioeconomic groups in terms of their opportunity to succeed in
school. In less industrialized countries, the effects that schools
have on student achievement are greater than the effects of
socioeconomic background (Reimers, 2000). A good school can make a
very substantial difference in the life of a disadvantaged child
-perhaps more of a difference than it will make in the life of a child
from a more privileged family.
In sum, to remove barriers to learning
opportunity, it is important to consider that: (a) the poorest
students are most likely to attend the least effective schools that
have the most poorly prepared teachers and worst school conditions,
(b) achievement scores reflect that the poorest students are doing
substantially worse in school, and (c) the quality of the education
that children receive is the most important variable for achievement
for the most disadvantaged students; it is this that determines if
they will have the opportunity to learn the knowledge and skills
necessary to change their lives.
Life Opportunity
The opportunity to transform one’s
social and economic life conditions means to gain access to the labor
market and earn enough to support oneself. It means to have the
education and social connections to engage in political and social
activity. Ideally, it means to be able to go beyond satisfying one’s
own needs and contribute to building a more just society. For
somebody who comes from a marginalized family and community, it means
breaking the cycle of living in extreme poverty and socioeconomic
exclusion, and, ideally, extending this opportunity to others in one’s
family and community.
Making it to higher education, which is
partially subsidized in El Salvador, is a first step into breaking
this cycle. Only 1.7% of the rural adult population, 20 years and
above, has at least 13 years of schooling, compared to 15.9% of the
urban adult population (DIGESTYC, 2000). Although this higher urban
rate of university attendance is partially due to the fact that people
from rural areas migrate to urban areas to attend university, it also
points to that lack of education opportunity at this level in rural
areas. The costs involved in migrating to the city to attend
university present an obstacle for the rural poor.
In general, it is only this small
percentage of the population that has the opportunity to attend
university that is able to obtain sufficient income to support a
family of four. As discussed in previous sections, the vast majority,
especially of the rural population, abandons the education system
before even completing secondary school. After twelve years of
schooling the average urban income is $329.55, which is not enough to
support the basic needs of a family of four. After nine years of
schooling, the average urban income is $238.00, which is below the
poverty line defined as $271.00 for urban zones, therefore anyone
having finished three years of schooling or less lives in poverty in
both rural and urban areas (DIGESTYC, 2000) . Average rural income
for this education level is $114.24, which is $82.51 short of escaping
rural poverty, while the urban income of $182.64 is $88.68 shy of
escaping urban poverty (DIGESTYC, 2000). In sum, having the
opportunity to transform one’s life means completing secondary school
with enough skills and knowledge to access higher education and/or
earn enough to live above the poverty line. Also, this opportunity is
contingent on receiving a quality education that promotes the
development of thinking skills, social skills, and values that allow
for successful integration into society. And finally, a very small
percentage of the population –and especially of the rural population
–reaches this level of opportunity to step out of socioeconomic
marginalization.
Policy Options: What is being done to
expand opportunity at all levels?
El
Salvador, like other Latin American countries, has implemented
policies and programs throughout the past decade to expand educational
opportunity through improving access and quality. Although some of
these programs are similar in strategy, countries have not taken the
same routes in their approach to improving equality. This could have
to do with seeing educational opportunity through a framework very
different than the one presented here, for example, one that does not
differentiate between levels of opportunity. It could also be the
cause of the subjectivity of
equity in looking at
equality,
as already discussed. Another possibility, linked to this subjective
definition of equity, is that the governments are at different stages,
or take different stances, with regards to educational opportunity.
Where some may be conservative,
believing that social class determines opportunity, others may be
liberal in their definition
and promote equal treatment,
and yet others may have a progressive
definition, promoting a
positive discrimination
approach. This conservative position has begun to fade out along with
the military dictatorships and radical conservatism that characterized
Latin American countries up until the 1990’s. What seems to dominate
in many countries, especially in Central America, is the liberal
position. The trend in some of these countries, like in the case of
El Salvador, has been to recognize the need for special attention at
the level of access for the marginalized population, especially under
international pressure to expand access, while assuming that
generalized efforts to improve quality will
also reach these populations.
Figure 2 illustrates this approach, where direct actions are taken to
improve access for the poorest sectors. The assumption is that the
actions to improve quality aimed at the population in general will
also reach the marginalized sectors, when, as already mentioned, these
efforts tend to offer more benefits to the less poor population.
Figure 3 represents a different approach. In this approach there is
acknowledgement that the efforts to improve quality will tend not to
benefit the poorest schools unless there are direct actions towards
this population to improve quality. This progressive approach, which
recognizes the need for special attention in quality as well as
access, are often termed compensatory policies
or programs. These policies, which
try to compensate for the existing social inequalities, can be defined
as “policies that attempt significant redistribution of education
resources and opportunities by redressing existing inequalities” (Reimers,
2000, p. 32).
The
programs implemented by the Salvadoran Ministry of Education in the
past decade aimed at improving opportunity for the marginalized
sectors have been on the level of attendance opportunity and
completion opportunity, not yet reaching the next level. Furthermore,
some elements of these programs, and recently adopted policies and
programs, merit careful examination so that the barriers to learning
opportunity do not thicken. Although these are not all of the recent
programs and policies, the present discussion considers: (a) EDUCO, a
Community Managed Schools Program, (b) Escuela Saludable, (d) Aulas
Alternativas, (d) Educación Acelerada, and (e) general efforts to
improve quality.
EDUCO is a program that started in 1991 and was initially funded by
the World Bank. The goals of this program are: (a) Improving access
to schools in the poorest communities, (b) improving the quality of
pre-primary and primary schooling, and (c) supporting and encouraging
community participation in education. The first goal, expanding
access to primary school, has been met successfully, as mentioned. In
terms of the second goal, however, evaluations that control for
background and other disadvantage variables, conclude that the program
has no impact in student achievement (Jimenez and Sawada, 1998). This
could be due to the underlying assumption in the approach. This
program seems to fall under the World Bank strategy of increasing the
quality of education through relatively costless efficiency reforms,
such as decentralization, which operate under the rationale that
increased community control allows for increased relevancy,
accountability and results (Carnoy, 1998, p. 47). While this
accountability causes less teacher, hence student, absenteeism, this
does not lead to higher achievement, which underscores the need to
look for different ways to improve quality. Furthermore, research
demonstrates that in low profile, or low quality, schools
participation seems to consist more of ratification of proposals than
debate, and these schools are the least enthusiastic about the effects
of local participation and are the most unlikely to participate
(Guevara, Hernandez de Rivas, Rodriguez, and Carrasco, 2000). This
does not mean that the goal has been entirely unmet, rather that the
schools where participation has increased may not be the poorest
quality schools.
The
Escuela Saludable, or Healthy School program, which started in 1995 in
coordination with Ministry of Health, is aimed at detecting health
problems that can interfere with learning in the poorest student
populations. Also a part of this program is food provision, mental
health support, efforts to involve parents in the school, training
about the program, and distribution of educational materials
(Fernandez and Carrrasco, 2000). The Ministry cites its achievements
as a series of activities that have been carried out, such as food
distribution, talks about nutrition and hygiene, workshops and
trainings about health and nutrition, and distribution of educational
materials, mini-libraries, and sports packages (Ministerio de
Educación, 2000b). Also among the achievements of the program the
Ministry cites a “decrease in absenteeism and desertion” (Fernandez
and Carrasco, 1998). Civil society organizations, however, have
criticized these claims by pointing out that this attention to roughly
600,000 children yearly is not enough to have a substantial impact on
this population, and suggest that it is necessary to do a real
assessment of the results (CIDEP, 1999). This criticism appears to be
valid in the light of research on compensatory programs that
demonstrates that the success of these programs is contingent on both
the amount of resources made
available for them and the
duration of their implementation (Driessen and Mulder, 1999). If less
than fifty percent of the population is being targeted, for example,
and the efforts are minimal in relation to the need, it may be
difficult to meet the goals. Also, it may not be possible to see
tangible results until up to ten years after implementation.
Furthermore, it is necessary to control for other variables and do a
longitudinal and/or comparison group study to determine if this
program is having an impact. It would be more efficient to invest in
a study of this type than to continue spending on this program if it’s
impact is insignificant. However, the Ministry’s efforts to target
resources to this population in order to contribute to their
opportunity to attend and complete school are important and could be
indicative of trend towards reducing inequality. Civil society
organizations may help accelerate this trend if they maintain a
critical stance towards the aims and results of these policies and
programs.
Another
effort aimed at increasing both attendance and completion opportunity
is the program Aulas Alternativas, or multi-grade classrooms. The
program is aimed at rural communities where there is low demand for
complete sections of grade levels, and consists of combining two or
more grades. The program also includes some instructional materials
and training to the teachers to aide them in this type of
instruction. The program started in 1996 as a pilot program for 23
communities. In 1997, it expanded to 133 communities, giving
attention to roughly 4.500 students with 157 teachers serving an
average of 29 students (Fernandez and Carrasco, 2000). The Ministry
cites its achievements for the year 2000 as the activities of
distributing teaching materials and imparting self-didactic materials
and trainings to the teachers (Ministerio de Educación, 2000b). There
are plans to expand this program in the coming years.
Again,
it is hard to tell if this program is having an impact or not on
school attendance and completion. Between 1994 and 1997, rural
secondary education enrolment increased by 37% from 3.2% to 4.8% (Ministerio
de Educación, 2000b). This could be due to the program, other reform
efforts, other factors, or a combination of all of these elements.
Distance education has also been implemented since 1994, and was
serving 8,895 students in 1997 (Fernandez and Carrasco, 2000). Again,
it is necessary to do a targeted study, controlling for other
variables, in order to assess the effectiveness of multi-grade
classrooms for attendance and completion. Yet it is also important to
take into account learning opportunity. The conditions of rural
teachers do not lend themselves to becoming better teachers through
self-didactic strategies, especially using an instructional approach
previously foreign to them. These teachers need effective support and
training in order to offer the students the opportunity to learn.
This is also an important consideration for students who choose to go
the route of distance education. In this case, the students may
altogether lack the support needed for effective learning. A
comparative analysis taking into account the effect of both programs
on attendance, repetition, completion, and achievement would be
helpful for policy and program decisions about secondary school
options.
Educación Acelerada, or the Accelerated Education program, was
initiated in 2000 as a pilot project financed by the World Bank, in
order to focus on and stamp out age-grade distortions (World Bank,
1998). The strategy is to work with students who are more than two
years behind their appropriate grade level in order help them get to
their appropriate level by going through curricular content in an
intensified and condensed manner. Again, this strategy should be
looked at in the light of learning opportunity, firstly, by examining
the literature on similar experiences in other contexts and secondly,
by assessing its impact on achievement and on other learning goals.
In
terms of addressing learning opportunity, or improving quality, there
are no efforts specifically directed towards the most marginalized
sectors. There are initiatives for improving the quality of the
education system as a whole, however, which have primarily focused on
in-service training. As previously discussed, since 1995 the
Ministry has implemented a new curriculum with a constructivist
approach and carried out trainings, on a massive scale, to familiarize
the teachers with this new approach. Perhaps in recognition of the
failure of teachers to internalize constructivist teaching after
several years of in-service training, the recent approach has been to
continue the trend to decentralize. Initiated for the first time last
year, at the end of every school year each school is given a quantity
of money for training, according to the number of teachers at that
school. The school is responsible for identifying their needs,
training, and hiring individual consultants or organizations. These
organizations and consultants must qualify to register in order for
them to sell their services.
While
this modality might be beneficial in terms of creating more school
autonomy and improving the relevance of the trainings for the
teachers, it may not benefit all the schools equally. The lowest
quality, or least effective, schools are less equipped to take on this
responsibility. As mentioned previously, these schools are less
likely to participate and positively exploit their autonomy. Being in
charge of professional development is a high level of responsibility
that requires technical criteria. Also, the poorest quality schools
do not have the knowledge and contacts that less marginalized schools
have in order to select their trainers. Another consideration is that
many of the schools that serve the marginalized populations are
smaller and have fewer teachers. This implies that they will receive
much less money than the large schools usually found in more urban
areas. The implication of this is that the teachers that are most in
need of training will have fewer resources for this than other
schools. While one option is for schools to combine resources and
receive trainings together, at present this is a recommendation of the
Ministry, not a policy. Finally, research on in-service training
points to teacher education being most effective when pre-service and
in-service training are integrated and systematic, meaning that
trainings are planned and carried out in a way that continually build
upon knowledge and skills, instead of being dispersed and ad
hoc (Villegas-Reimers, 1996; Torres,
1999).
Programs such as: EDUCO, Escuela Saludable, Aulas Alternativas, and
Educación Acelerada are aimed at improving educational opportunity for
the marginalized sectors. They are limited, however, to the first
levels: attendance opportunity and completion opportunity. At the
level of learning opportunity, at present it is unclear if these
programs will have a positive effect, negative effect, or no effect on
equality.
The
barrier for achieving equality may not lie so much in the definition
of the policies themselves, but in their implementation. The overall
policies of the Ministry do refer to decreasing the remainder of the
educational gap between regions and socioeconomic groups (Ministerio
de Educación, 2000a). On the one hand, this policy statement reflects
the acknowledgement of the existing problem of inequality in the
education system. On the other hand, however, the terminology
reflects an assumption that inequality is not a deep, structural
problem, but that there is a remainder of inequality. Also, even
though there are programs that respond to this at the level of access,
it is questionable if this is a strategic policy.
This type of policy, according to
Haddad (1994), implies “strategic decisions (that) deal with large
scale policies and broad resource allocations” (p. 4). To determine
if these programs imply broad resource allocations it would be
important to look at the percentage of resources directed to the
marginalized populations in relation to the rest of the population,
taking into account if these are national resources or external
resources usually in the form of loans. Another barrier to equality
seems to be the model, or conception, of equality underlying decisions
at the highest level of policy. In order to chip away at the barriers
to equality, it would be important to move from a liberal conception
of equal treatment to all as illustrated by Figure 2 to a progressive
model of discriminatory treatment as illustrated by Figure 3.
Policy and Program Options to Improve
Quality
Improving equality of educational opportunity at all levels, impacting
also the level of life opportunity, implies making strategic decisions
towards this end. Making this type of decision means deciding to take
a different path – one that will lead towards a more equitable
society. In a context like El Salvador, however, with a recent
history of war, extreme political opposition, and conservative
dictatorships, a progressive policy decision at the strategic level
may not be possible in the near future. As Haddad (1994) points out,
policy changes are connected to social, economic, and political
dimensions, and “any attempt to modify the system, which is perceived
by one group or another as lowering the chances of their children to
progress socially or economically, will meet with strong opposition”
(p. 9). A decision to reorient resources to another socio-economic
group would most likely be met with such resistance. However, even if
this change on a strategic level is not possible at present,
multi-program or program policy decisions could be made towards
improving equality beyond the first two levels of opportunity. At
either level, and with some possible variations in magnitude and
commitment, various policy options can be explored.
One
general option to consider is the implementation compensatory policies
or actions, as previously explained. Some Latin American countries,
such as Mexico, Colombia, and Chile, have begun taking this
progressive approach in the past decade. For example, since 1991
Mexico has implemented various compensatory programs aimed at
providing infrastructure and materials, training and incentives for
teachers, and other actions taken to improve quality in the most
marginalized sectors (PREAL, 2001). These efforts began with a
program targeting only 100 schools, but expanded to 46% of public
schools by 1999. According to reports, this program proved effective
in improving completion rates for the targeted schools; A longitudinal
assessment of the program, however, showed no significant impact of
the program in learning gains (Reimers, 2002). What is important to
note, however, is that the implementation deviated significantly from
the design, in pedagogical approach, training, support, and the degree
of components that reached the schools, and that “teacher education
component was the most haphazard aspect of the program” (Reimers,
2002, p. 21). As pointed out by Driessen and Mulder (1999), for
programs of this type to succeed, it is necessary to have strong
policy theory, effective implementation, and consider other factors
such as commitment of time and resources. Even though changing
teacher practices may be very difficult, especially in the poorest
quality schools, there are cases of success. In these cases, where
programs were aimed at restructuring schools, students who started the
program at well below the national average in reading comprehension
were able to substantially increase their performance to exceed those
averages. For interventions of this type to be successful, however,
they should be structured around such core aspects as an emphasis on
the preparation of teachers and a more demanding curriculum (Reimers,
2000, p. 33-34).
As
evidenced by the discussion of the barriers to equality in El
Salvador, there are various paths that could be taken to begin to chip
away at these barriers. Also, as discussed, compensatory programs and
policies could be a means to rid of these barriers more quickly.
However, taking into consideration the magnitude and range of their
causes -from late entry into the education system, lack of prior
learning, repetition, desertion and lack of primary school completion,
and extremely low enrolment and completion of secondary school- it is
not easy to decide towards which area to direct resources. While one
may want to approach the problem from various angles, this should be
given very careful consideration; program and policy decisions are
decisions about resources, and as Levin (1983) states in regards to
cost effectiveness, “(e)very intervention uses resources that can be
utilized for other valued alternatives” (p. 48). Assuming that the
aim is to achieve more equality of educational opportunity at the
level of learning opportunity, this is a primary criterion for
deciding which route should be taken.
Secondary Education
Successful completion of secondary education is necessary for
socioeconomic mobility, and, less than 5% of rural Salvadorans are
enrolled at this level. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to
increase investment at this level. However, it is important to
consider various factors. First of all, with such a low percentage of
rural children finishing primary school, it is logical that secondary
school enrolment is very low. Evidently there is a demand that is not
being covered, but it is dispersed instead of concentrated. In this
sense, the current programs of multi-grade classrooms and distance
education may be the most feasible option to improve access to
secondary education for the short-term until rural primary school
completion is significantly increased. An important investment at
this level, as mentioned, is to carry out an evaluation of the impact
of these programs on both completion and student achievement.
Early Childhood Education
In
recent years, more research points to the importance of early
childhood education for success in school and life. Researchers cite
medical and educational research claiming that “mental growth (or) the
development of intelligence, personality, and social behavior…occur
most rapidly in humans during their earliest years” (Young, 1996, p.
5). As mentioned, research also points to the effects of early
childhood education on improving the readiness of children to attend
school, hence decreasing repetition and increasing their probability
of success in school. However, this same literature recognizes that
“the value of benefits that children, mothers, and communities receive
relative to the cost of providing different child service inputs”
(Young, 1996, p. 40) is unknown. Efforts to implement early
childhood education programs in developing countries are faced with
the same problems as basic and secondary education: inadequate
infrastructure, poorly trained teachers, and a high ratio of children
to a teacher. This may be more problematic for infants and small
children, who need a safe environment and specialized attention from a
primary care giver. It would take a large investment to create a
childhood education program that meets these requirements, drawing
resources away from an investment that could have a greater impact on
educational opportunity.
Instead
of neglecting this level altogether, less expensive modalities could
be implemented, such as non-formal and community-based programs.
These could be home-day care or parent education programs that
function on a volunteer or quasi-volunteer basis. These are
relatively low-cost programs that can offer early stimulation for
mental and physical development (Myers, 1989, p. 29). They can also
be instrumental in changing cultural beliefs, for example, about the
age that it is appropriate to begin school. This could help get
children into pre-primary school earlier. Such programs are being
implemented in El Salvador by Salvadoran non-government and government
organizations, also with assistance from international organizations,
such as the World Bank and USAID (United States Agency for
International Development), as well as with national resources.
For the efficient use of these
resources, it is advisable to learn from the successes and failures of
similar programs internationally as well as to evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs.
Basic Education
Many of
the causes of inequality of educational opportunity can be addressed
by targeting basic education. As discussed, repetition is a
structural problem that constitutes a barrier to completion
opportunity. It is caused by family conditions, such as poverty and
lack of prior learning, as well as problems with quality and education
policy. All of these problems could be addressed with a structured
and targeted program aimed at improving these conditions in the least
effective schools. To effectively implement a program of this type,
it is important to have a model with criteria for classifying the
areas and levels of need for school improvement. For this, school
effectiveness research can help to provide a model of an ultimate
goal, or the ultimate stage that a school should get to. School
improvement literature, in turn, can help to define the process for
arriving to this goal.
While
there are slight variations, research points to similar factors that
constitute an effective school. These factors are: professional
leadership, shared vision and goals, a learning environment,
concentration on teaching and learning, purposeful teaching, high
expectations, positive reinforcement, monitoring progress, a learning
organization, and home-school partnerships (Heneveld and Craig, 2000;
Reimers, 2000, p. 29). Different schools have varying levels of
development in each of these domains, pointing to the need of a clear
strategy to address this variation. In this sense, it is helpful to
look at schools in a framework of stages of development. Beeby’s
(1966) model, while outdated and conceptually linear, lays out a model
that defines four stages of development; the divisions according to
levels of effectiveness offer some relevant organizing tools and
insights. However, it is limited in its notion that schools can only
progress from the lowest stage to the highest stage of effectiveness
in a sequential and linear fashion. Also, many of the elements that
constitute an effective school are not included in this model. What
are helpful about the model are its criteria for classifying schools
according to different characteristics. While schools do not
necessarily have to progress from one level to the next, there is
validity in Beeby’s warning that attempting to move to move directly
from a low level of development to an advanced stage, for example, by
removing teacher supports such as highly scripted materials, could
cause a school to regress (p.70). Another example of this is
expecting a school to govern itself completely, when it has never had
this responsibility, which could cause it to fall into complete
disorganization. Beeby also offers a helpful notion regarding teacher
improvement: There should not be unreal expectations placed on
teachers (p.73). It could be that a teacher that matches the model
for the highest level of effectiveness cannot be made from the
existing teacher(s) in the school. This is important to recognize in
order to avoid failure in implementation. Finally, Beeby’s point that
change and innovation have proven more feasible in the lowest grades
(p.75-76) is a helpful insight in order to focalize efforts where
impact may be the highest. The high repetition and drop out rates at
this level underscore this argument.
Once a
model is established of the effective school, a public school
assessment can be carried out that classifies the level of need in
each domain (see Appendix A). Resources could be allocated according
to this level of need. In general, the lowest-scoring schools would
be allocated the most resources, and highest scoring schools the
least. On a more specific level, weaknesses in the different domains
will demand different levels of resources. For example, one school
may score very low on well being of students and not so low on teacher
preparation and support while the opposite may be true for another
school. The educational inputs needed to improve this school’s score
in the first category may be less costly than the training needs for
the other school. If resources were allocated in such a way, under a
solid program design and faithful implementation, the expected result
would be that schools would move towards equality in their level of
effectiveness.
As
mentioned, however, it cannot be expected that there will be faithful
implementation, which is why it is important to draw upon school
improvement research. This research sheds light on what works for
changing schools, and while it is important to consider the cultural
context for all proposed changes, as Reynolds (1992) points out “it is
equally important that improvement programmes bring all available
knowledge to the solution of continuing problems such as
underachievement” (p.1282). In this case, it is particularly
important to analyze the effects of compensatory programs and other
efforts to improve learning conditions for the lowest socioeconomic
groups.
One
tool that has had relative success in several Latin American countries
such as Colombia is the use of the Proyecto Educativo Institucional,
or School Education Project. This is a strategic planning tool that
contemplates the different domains of a school similar to the domains
described for effective schools in Appendix A. This shares
characteristics with the Logical Framework, which is a strategic
planning tool used by international development organizations. The
framework, which uses a participatory approach, includes the need to
define immediate and long-term objectives, carry out a cause and
effect analysis, and determine external factors that can affect the
process during implementation. This tool could be effectively used in
the compensatory program proposed in this paper. In this way, local
Ministry officials, supervisors now termed asesores pedagogicos, or
pedagogical advisors, for their newly defined role to support
teachers, and the community could participate in the needs assessment,
planning, and monitoring of the improvement plan for the school.
Strategies such as Action Research would be particularly useful to
create a learning environment and shared vision.
Conclusions
El Salvador, similar to many Latin
American countries, has undergone substantial sociopolitical and
economic change in the past decade, and the education system has been
changing in tandem. These changes have brought a shift from a more
conservative education policy approach to a more liberal approach; and
combined with international pressure, have contributed to increased
educational opportunity at one level, which is the level of access. A
more differentiated model of educational opportunity, however, reveals
that thick barriers to equality still exist – barriers that may only
be chipped away at with a more progressive definition of equality.
While strategic policy decisions under this approach would be the most
effective in improving equality of opportunity at higher levels, this
may not be possible for the context of El Salvador. Here, change
towards a progressive approach will most likely be incremental. This
paper has proposed a framework for increasing equality of learning
opportunity by implementing a compensatory program that is aimed at
improving schools incrementally and according to need.
While inequality is a structural problem
that must be addressed on a national level and across governmental
sectors and private and other non-governmental actors, what is
considered here –educational opportunity- plays a key role in
increasing the probability that the marginalized populations will
transform their living conditions. Above all, this opportunity should
be a gateway for this population to have a voice in public policy in
order to help build a new socioeconomic model that foments their
livelihood and dignity as citizens. Children born in to a
marginalized population have the potential to transform their reality
and contribute to a larger transformation of the conditions of their
community. At each sorting point, children can go up, out, or down
the scale of opportunity. The number of children who ascend to the
highest level –life opportunity- will depend on what education policy
decisions are made in the coming years.
References
Haddad, W. (1994). The Dynamics of
Education Policy Making. World Bank, EDI Development Policy Case
Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Heneveld, W. & Craig, H. (2000).
Schools Count: World Bank Project Designs and the Quality of Primary
Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Technical Paper
Number 303, Africa Technical Department Series. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Reimers, F. (2002). The Social Context
of Educational Evaluation in Latin America. In D. Nevo, & D.
Stufflebeam (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational
Evaluation (pp.1-31). Kluwer: Academic Press.
Rivas, F. (Ed.). (2000). Evaluación de la Cumbre Mundial sobre
Desarrollo Social 1995-2000.
[Evaluation of the World Summit on Social Development,
1995-2000]. CIDEP. San
Salvador, El Salvador: Tipografía Offset
Laser.
Torres, R.M. (1999).
The New Role of the Teacher: What Teacher Education Model for
What Education Model? In R.M. Torres, Aprender
para el Futuro: Nuevo Marco de la Tarea Docente. Madrid,
Spain: Santillana Foundation.
Villegas-Reimers,
E., & Reimers, F. (1996). Where are the 60 million teachers? The
Missing
Voice in Educational Reforms Around the World. Prospects,
Vol. XXVI. No 3.
UNESCO. (2000). World Education Report.
The Right to Education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
World Bank. (1998). Project Appraisal
Document on a Proposed Adaptable Program Loan in the Amount of US$
88.0 Million to the Republic of El Salvador for an Education Reform
Project. Report No. 17415 – ES.
Young, M. (1996). Early Childhood
Development: Investing in the Future. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Appendix A
Domains of
School Effectiveness: A means for improving schools according to need.
Each domain may be
at a different level of development in each school. Also, each domain
implies differences in spending in terms of amount and time (ongoing,
periodic, one-time investment). The following domains would have to
be assessed based on criteria for determining how much and what type
of investment is necessary for improvement in that domain.
1. Teacher
Preparation and Support: Pre-service and in-service training conceived
as one teacher education system. This is ongoing need that tends to
be costly.
2. Leadership
and School Governance: Leadership and the ability of the school to
govern itself requires training and ongoing support. This also tends
to be relatively costly.
3. Community
and Parental Involvement: The active involvement of parents, children,
and other community members in the school, including both resource
management and administration as well as curricular aspects of the
school (what and how the children learn). This implies knowledge of
team-work, consensus building, and some technical criteria, for which
training may be necessary. This training may not need to be as
intensive and ongoing as the training for domains 1 and 2, hence could
be less costly.
4. Curriculum
and Materials: A high quality and demanding curriculum, as well as
materials relevant to the population, are essential for effective
learning. The cost of this varies, depending on magnitude and
frequency of their adaptation.
5. School
Conditions: Necessary conditions for an effective school include basic
infrastructure, safety and hygiene, and a teacher-student ratio that
allows for effective teaching. This costs involved in this domain may
be on a one-time or periodic basis, and not recurrent like domains
1-3.
6. Well-being
of Students means adequate nutrition, health, clothing, and other
basic needs met in order to allow them to attend school. This may
require instituting a school-feeding program, providing uniforms,
and/or financial aid for poor students/families for attending school.
*Accountability is
built into the first three domains: Effective teacher preparation,
leadership and school governance, and parental and community
involvement, allow for ongoing assessment of progress and means of
dividing responsibility between the stakeholders.
Footnotes
Both Reimers and Farrell discuss these conditions as well, not
limiting the ‘access’ solely to geographical access.
|
