Factores explicativos del rendimiento escolar en Latinoamérica con datos PISA 2009 // Factors Explaining School Performance in Latin America with PISA 2009 Data

Autores/as

  • Justo de Jorge-Moreno Departamento de Economía y Dirección de Empresas Universidad de Alcalá de Henares

Palabras clave:

Latinoamérica, nivel socio-económico, efecto compañero, titularidad, PISA2009, Latin America, socioeconomic status, peer effect, ownership, PISA 2009

Resumen

Este trabajo ha tenido como objetivo principal determinar el efecto país, tipo de centro (su titularidad, pública o privada) y sus recursos sobre los resultados educativos de los alumnos del sistema de enseñanza latinoamericano del programa PISA 2009. Los resultados obtenidos aplicando un análisis multinivel revelan que las diferencias de rendimiento académico a favor de los centros privados son explicadas por la titularidad del centro dando respaldo empírico a favor de la hipótesis Coleman-Hoffer. Las características del entorno familiar del alumno y de los recursos de la escuela tambiéen tienen un fuerte poder explicativo. En relación a las primeras, los alumnos nativos en familias nucleares y con mayor nivel socioeconómico y recursos en el hogar obtienen mayores rendimientos que el resto de categorías. Este hecho es especialmente significativo a la hora de señalar algunos aspectos que el sistema educativo debería tener en cuenta a la hora de garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades educativas. En relación a las segundas, el tamaño de la escuela, el clima en el aula y los recursos disponibles en los centros tienen una fuerte influencia en el rendimiento académico.

------------------------------------

This work has as main objective to determine the effect country, type of institution (its ownership, public or private) and their resources on educational outcomes for students of Latin-American education system from PISA 2009. The results obtained by applying a multilevel analysis reveal that differences in academic performance in favor of private schools are explained by the type of school providing empirical support for the hypothesis Coleman-Hoffer. The environment features student and school resources also have strong explanatory power. Regarding the former, native students in nuclear families with higher socioeconomic status and household resources get higher yields than other categories. This is especially significant in pointing out some aspects that the education system should take into account when ensuring equal educational opportunities. Regarding the latter, the size of the school, the classroom environment and the resources available in the centers have a strong influence on academic performance.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Abburrà, L. (2005). As good as the others. Northern Italian students and their peers in other European regions. Instituto Ricerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte. November.

Altonji, J.G.; T.E. Elder y C.E. Taber (2005). “Selection on observed and unobserved variables: assessing the effectiveness of catholic schools.” Journal of Political Economy, 113 (1): 151-184.

Angrist, J.; E. Bettinger; E. Bloom; E. King y M. Kremer (2002). “Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment.” The American Economic Review. 92 (5): 1535-1558.

Bassi, M.; M. Busso; S. Urzúa y J. Vargas (2012). “Disconnected: Skills, Education, and employment in Latin America”. Inter-American Development Bank.

Calero, J. y J. Escardíbul (2007). “Evaluación de servicios educativos: el rendimiento en los centros públicos y privados medido en PISA-2003”. Hacienda Pública Española. 183: 33-66.

Coleman, J.; T. Hoffer y S. Kilgore (1982). High school achievement. Public, catholic and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.

Cordero, J.M.; E. Crespo y F. Pedraja (2011a). “Rendimiento educativo y determinantes según PISA: Una revisión de la literatura en España”. Revista de Educación, 362: 273-297.

Cordero, J.M.; E. Crespo; F. Pedraja y D. Santin (2011b). “Exploring educational efficiency divergences across Spanish region in PISA 2006”. Revista de Economía Aplicada, 57: 117-145.

Corten, R. y J. Dronkers (2006). “School Achievement of Pupils From the Lower Strata in Public, Private Government-Dependent and Private Government-Independent Schools: A cross-national test of the Coleman-Hoffer thesis.” Educational Research and Evaluation, 2: 179-208.

Cox, D. y E. Jiménez (1991). “The relative effectiveness of private and public schools: Evidence from two developing countries.” Journal of Development Economics, 34 (1-2): 99-121.

Crespo-Cebada, E.; F. Pedraja-Chaparro y D. Santin (2014). “Does school ownership matter? An unbiased efficiency comparison for regions of Spain”. Journal of Productivity Analysis 41: 153-172.

De Jorge, J. y D. Santín (2010). “Determinantes de la eficiencia educativa en la Unión Europea”. Hacienda Pública Española / Revista de Economía Pública, 193 (2): 131-156.

Dronkers, J. (2004). “Do public and religious schools really differ? Assessing the European evidence”. En P.J. Wolf y S. Macedo (eds.). Educating citizens: International perspectives on civic values and school choice (pp. 287-312). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Evans, W.N. y R.M. Schwab (1995). “Finishing high school and starting college: Do catholic schools make a difference?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110: 941-974.

Fertig, M. (2003). “Who’s to Blame? The Determinants of German Students’ Achievement in the PISA 2000 Study.” IZA Discussion Paper Series, 739.

Figlio, D.N. y J.A. Stone (1997). “School choice and student performance: Are private schools really better?” Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper, 1141-97.

Godard, S. y E. Smith (2004). “An international comparison of equity in education systems”. Comparative Education, 40(1): 15-31.

Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel Statistical Models. Nueva York: Willey.

Hanushek, E.A. (1986), “The economics of schooling.” Journal of Economic Literature, 24: 1141-1177.

Instituto de Evaluación (2010). PISA 2009. Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de los Alumnos: OCDE Informe Español. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación.

Jiménez, E.; M. Loockheed y V. Paqueo (1991). “The relative efficiency of private and public schools in developing countries.” The World Bank Research Observer, 6 (2): 205-218.

Kirjavainen, T. y H.A. Loikkanen (1998). “Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: an application of DEA and Tobit analysis.” Economics of Education Review, 17 (4): 377-394.

Kyriakides, L. (2006). “Introduction international studies in educational effectiveness”. Educational Research and Evaluation,12(6): 489-497.

Ma, X.; L. Ma y K.D. Bradley (2008). “Using multilevel modeling to investigate school effects”. En A.A. O’Connell y D.B. McCoach (eds.). Multilevel Modelling of Educational Data (pp. 59–110). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Miller, M.D. y W.P. Moore (1991). “Private-public school differences in the United Status: findings from the second international mathematics study.” International Journal of Educational Research, 15: 433-444.

Murillo, F.J. (2008). “Los modelos multinivel como herramienta para la investigación educativa”. Magis Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación, 1: 45-62.

Neal, D. (1997). “The effects of catholic secondary schooling on educational achievement.” Journal of Labor Economics, 15 (1): 98-123.

Newhouse, D. y K. Beegle (2006). “The effect of school type on academic achievement.” The Journal of Human Resources, 41 (3): 529-557.

Noell, J. (1982). “Public and Catholic Schools: A Reanalysis of ‘Public and Private Schools’.” Sociology of Education, 55: 123-132.

Opdenakker, M.C. y J. Van Damme (2006). “Differences between secondary schools: A study about school context, group composition, school practice, and school effects with special attention to public and Catholic schools and types of schools.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (1): 87-117.

Perelman, S. y D. Santín (2011). “Measuring educational efficiency at student level with parametric stochastic distance functions: an application to Spanish PISA results”. Education Economics, 19 (1): 29-49.

Sander, B. (1996). Gestión educativa en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Troquel.

Smith, J. y R.A. Naylor (2005). “Schooling effects on subsequent university performance: evidence for the UK university population.” Economics of Education Review, 24: 549-562.

Somers, M.A.; P.J. McEwan y J.D. Willms (2004). “How effective are private schools in Latin- America?” Comparative Education Review, 48: 48–69.

Stevans, L.K. y D.N. Sessions (2000). “Private/public school choice and student performance revisited.” Education Economics, 8 (2): 169-184.

Publicado

2016-12-14

Cómo citar

de Jorge-Moreno, J. (2016). Factores explicativos del rendimiento escolar en Latinoamérica con datos PISA 2009 // Factors Explaining School Performance in Latin America with PISA 2009 Data. Revista De Métodos Cuantitativos Para La Economía Y La Empresa, 22, Páginas 216 a 229. Recuperado a partir de https://www.upo.es/revistas/index.php/RevMetCuant/article/view/2348

Número

Sección

Artículos