The Korean Society For The Economics And Finance Of Education, Hongju Yun, Sookyong Nam, Ki Chang Song
This study aims to analyze the major issues and tasks surrounding the reform of the Local Education Finance Grant(LEFG) system in response to changes in the educational environment, including the restructuring of local government systems. To this end, the study examines the current state of revenues and expenditures in local education finance, and reviews the impacts and issues that administrative integration poses for local education finance. The findings reveal that the current LEFG system is highly vulnerable to tax revenue volatility, thereby limiting the stable operation of education finance. Furthermore, a reduction in local education finance is anticipated due to the strengthening of fiscal decentralization. The major issues identified in the reform debate include: the transition to a grant calculation method that reflects the declining number of students; the removal of fiscal barriers; the compensation for grant revenue losses; and legislative gaps in statutory transfer provisions. In response to these issues, first, mechanisms to ensure the stability of education finance operations must be established. Second, given the inevitability of resource sharing with higher education, rational approaches to resource management warrant serious consideration, including the conversion to an integrated education grant, the transformation of statutory transfers into discretionary transfers, and the establishment of a local government-centered governance framework for higher education finance. Third, fiscal neutrality in education finance must be preserved in the course of advancing fiscal decentralization, and appropriate measures must be taken to prevent inequities between integrated special metropolitan cities and other city and provincial offices of education. This is because the essence of LEFG reform lies not in reducing financial resources, but in ensuring stable support for educational activities and preparing for the future of education.
The current research is about the financing of school participatory structures, particularly FC / CGDES and CGDES in the commune of Droum, Niger Republic. It essentially aims at determining the explanatory factors of financial gap of these structures that are partnership frameworks between the State, development partners, schools, families and community. To do this, both qualitative and quantitative data have been collected across the questionnaire, the snowball technique, the direct observation. Our analyzes showed the existence of factors which created a financial lack directly hindering the achievement of activities of these structures within schools. Added to this, are internal and external parameters including the reluctance of parents linked to their bad connotation of school of white, local actors strategies of co-optation, etc. The whole of these factors determined the low mobilization of funds for the financing of these structures in Droum.
This study presents a comparative analysis of the devolution of education governance between Makueni County in Kenya and Ontario, Canada, focusing on governance structures, funding mechanisms, and educational outcomes. The paper analyzes the various challenges and opportunities posed by decentralization in both regions, with a focus on differences in administrative resources, the distribution of central funds, and local government performance; Others are more systemic within the childhood education environment, for example Makueni County is still quite a long way behind Ontario in terms of fully (for the most part) functioning decentralized education systems, check out the comparative in terms of sustainable or reliable governance models, funding mechanisms and local autonomy, the other perhaps is regional segregation as certainly Makueni County has some overarching larger issues beyond just early childhood development e.g. the funding issues and deployment issues of teachers, but these perhaps can be attributed to the ongoing issues with devolution within Kenya and indeed with human capital in this region more broadly. Employing a mixed-methods research design including policy analysis, interviews and analysis of secondary data, the study examines the impact of devolution on educational outcomes. Results suggest that Makueni promotes more local participation but faces challenges with institutional functionality and fair financing, contrary to the Model of Ontario, which shows a much higher levels of efficiently, equity and accountability. The paper then ends with policy recommendations for Makueni, and suggesting to implement ones from Ontario´s decentralized system that could be a solution for Makueni missing in governance, financial, and education standards.
This study aims to analyze and compare education financing systems in Finland, Japan, the United States, and Indonesia, with a focus on identifying key characteristics, philosophical differences, and policy implications of each model. The research employs a systematic literature review combined with comparative analysis, using management-oriented indicators including equity, efficiency, governance, and sustainability. Findings indicate that Finland implements a full public funding model emphasizing equity, Japan operates a hybrid model with high transparency, the United States exhibits significant disparities due to property-tax-based decentralization, and Indonesia remains in a transitional phase with challenges in fiscal capacity and governance accountability. The study highlights that successful education financing depends on consistent policy implementation, clear funding distribution formulas, and integrity in governance systems. The results provide actionable policy implications for improving national education financing, including the adoption of needs-based funding formulas, digitalized accountability systems, and diversified funding sources through publicâprivate partnerships. By integrating management and governance dimensions, this study contributes to a better understanding of effective and equitable educational funding practices across diverse contexts.
Education endowment funds are increasingly promoted as sustainable financing instruments to support long-term educational development, particularly within decentralized governance systems. However, empirical evidence on how such funds are governed and implemented at the local level remains limited. This study examines the governance of the Education Endowment Fund in Bojonegoro Regency, Indonesia, focusing on the translation of policy intentions into institutional practices and school-level utilization. Drawing on qualitative data from in-depth interviews and policy document analysis, the study finds that although the fund operates within a formally structured governance framework, its implementation is characterized by centralized decision-making, compliance-oriented accountability mechanisms, and constrained local agency. Consequently, the fund is largely utilized to address short-term operational needs rather than to advance long-term sustainability objectives. The findings also reveal the importance of informal coordination and adaptive practices in navigating administrative complexity, albeit with uneven outcomes across institutions. This study contributes to debates on education financing governance by highlighting the critical role of local governance dynamics in shaping policy outcomes.
The modern educational prison has no bars. Students attend, comply, pass tests, receive diplomas â and emerge unable to use what those diplomas certify. This paper formalizes that decoupling as CM-001 (Idolatry Failure) in educational governance using the Zero Leap Theory (ZLT) framework. When the Alignment Gate (ÎŚ) closes â through mandatory curricula, high Forced Exposure Ratios (FER), and assessment-driven instruction â the system enters an Idolatry Failure regime: the proxy (standardized scores, compliance metrics) is optimized while the structural target (transferable learning capacity, V_real) drifts. The Structural Delusion Index for Education (SDI_edu) is positive and growing. Internal metrics report success. External audit reveals divergence. This paper is the structural complement of ZLT-P15 (The Credential Standardization Trap). P15 addresses the quadrant where exit is blocked (C â 0): coercion is visible. P16 addresses the orthogonal quadrant: exit is available (C > 0), but ÎŚ has closed. Students remain. Metrics stay green. The structural damage is invisible â precisely because assessment pressure simultaneously suppresses the behavioral signals (dropout, resistance) that would trigger correction. This is the Invisible Prison: a five-criterion observable configuration detectable with existing OECD instruments. Core empirical result: Using PISA 2022 and the OECD Survey of Adult Skills 2023 across 33 OECD countries: Ď(FER, SDI_edu) = 0.795, p < 0.0001. Higher Forced Exposure Ratio is strongly associated with greater proxy/competence decoupling. t-test high-FER vs low-FER countries: t = 4.986, p = 0.0008. Prediction 3 of ZLT-P16 confirmed. The structural triangle: South Korea presents the canonical case of sophisticated proxy/competence decoupling: top-3 PISA globally, 79% school belonging (above OECD average), but 22% life dissatisfaction (above OECD average). In the Survey of Adult Skills 2023, Korean adults (16-65) score below the OECD average in numeracy and adaptive problem-solving. Among Korean youth (16-24), literacy is above OECD average, but adaptive problem-solving falls below â the structural signature of compliance-type learning: succeeds where assessment trains, fails specifically on transfer competence. Finland is the proof-of-concept: comparable proxy outcomes, SDI_edu near zero, adult skills above OECD average across all three domains including youth 16-24. Two core corollaries derived from CM-001/P75 and I-3/P_SYNTH: P16.C1 (Alignment-Divergence): when ÎŚ < ÎŚ_min, SDI_edu grows monotonically â proxy improves while Ď(proxy, V_real) declines. P16.C2 (Invisible Acquiescence): the conditions that close ÎŚ simultaneously suppress the behavioral signals that would alert the system to its own failure. The prison self-conceals. New constructs: SDI_edu three-layer audit family (SDI-1 within-system, SDI-2 young-adult orthogonal, SDI-3 long-run structural); Compliance Cascade Onset Point (CCOP); Invisible Prison as five-criterion observable state; IAS-CUR v2.1 audit standard; Attribution Inversion Principle (P16.AIP). This Zenodo record includes: ZLT_P16_v2_2_zenodo.pdf â full paper (14 pages, DOI embedded) ZLT_P16_v2_2.docx â Word source ZLT_P16_v2_1_with_appendices.docx â version with embedded figures and Appendices DâF zlt_cur_audit.py â IAS-CUR v2.1 executable audit tool (4/4 canonical tests passing; run: python zlt_cur_audit.py --test) zlt_p16_phase_diagram.py â Phase Diagram Suite: FER vs SDI_edu for 33 OECD countries (run: python zlt_p16_phase_diagram.py) zlt_p16_knowledge_decay.py â Knowledge Decay Index (KDI) exploratory tool with honest null result zlt_p16_ias_cur_interactive.html â IAS-CUR v2.1 interactive browser-based audit (open in any browser, no server needed) 9 companion PNG figures (phase diagram suite + KDI suite) All scripts run in Google Colab without API keys or external downloads. No authentication required. Part of the Zero Leap Theory (ZLT) series. Upstream: ZLT-P75 (CM-001 / doi:10.5281/zenodo.18940742), ZLT-P_SYNTH (I-3, OD-1 / doi:10.5281/zenodo.19498184), ZLT-P15 (structural complement / doi:10.5281/zenodo.18344309). Series root: doi:10.5281/zenodo.18264279. v2.2 changelog: Corrects empirical overclaim on Korea 16-24 youth data present in v2.1. Accurate data per OECD Survey of Adult Skills 2023: literacy above OECD average, numeracy near average, adaptive problem-solving below OECD average. Domain-specific decoupling framing (compliance-type learning fails specifically on transfer competence) replaces the v2.1 maximal claim. Theory, structure, and all other empirical claims unchanged. Companion tools added in this version.
From July 1, 2025, Vietnam will replace its three-tier local government structure with a two-tier model, raising questions about how far legal decentralization can deliver more inclusive and collaborative governance in key sectors such as education. This article uses doctrinal legal analysis to examine the constitutional, organization- al, and fiscal architecture of the reform, focusing on the education decentralization decrees issued by the government. It asks how the two-tier model reallocates powers across the center, province, and commune, whether finance, performance indicators, and data governance rules are aligned with subsidiarity, fiscal equivalence, and trans- parent multilevel coordination, and which combinations of rules create a real scope for collaboration. The analysis finds that inclusive collaboration is most likely where devolved mandates are matched by predictable, equalized funding, clearly specified Education Management Information System (EMIS)-based information flows, and enforceable participation procedures, while ambiguous oversight clauses and frag- mented data systems risk precautionary recentralization, especially in capacity-con- strained provinces. The article concludes by proposing doctrinal benchmarks and a phased implementation roadmap to help policymakers translate the two-tier reform from formal devolution into operational collaboration in the education sector.
In the education decentralization processes, community participation in education governance has been argued to be essential for improving accountability to service beneficiaries. Therefore, this paper examined the perspectives of key actors on the impact of an educational decentralization policy on improving school quality education in Junior High Schools in Ghana. Participants in the study were 54 School Management Committee (SMC)/Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) members, 106 teachers, and 11 head teachers in 11 schools drawn from two districts in the Central Region of Ghana. Teachers filled out questionnaires and interviews were conducted with SMC/PTA members using a semi-structured interview guide and with 11 head teachers. The paper reveals that the education decentralization policy, with community participation at its heart, has given schools some autonomy in their decision-making process. However, the involvement of community members in school activities has been limited mainly to financing, with little emphasis on the decision-making process in school governance. The study recommends that there should be adequate support for communities to become more involved in the decision-making process, especially in implementing the School Performance Improvement Plan for Ghana to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4.
The RISE (Research on Improving Systems of Education) Programme political economy team focused on âadoptionâ (PET-A) examines the political conditions required to put learning at the center of an education system. This work stream has produced 12 historical case studies and three synthesis papers which draw on this rich material. This paper is part of the latter effort and offers a comparative analysis across five of the countries with RISE Country Research Teams (Ethiopia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Vietnam), as well as additional case studies focusing on Chile and Peru. Building on the RISE systems framework (Pritchett, 2015), our political economy analysis incorporates issues of competing interests, power, and political strategy. We focus on the promoters and blockers of learning-oriented education reform and their respective powers and strategies to parse out the political contestations that are endemic to the reform processes that impact system coherence around learning. In this paper, we present a binding constraints framework to explore what a politics for learning might look like and examine areas of intervention that present critical bottlenecks impeding a countryâs ability to deliver learning outcomes which, if addressed, pose the potential for large impact relative to other constraints. We draw upon the PET-A country case studies to include analysis of different factions and reform champions within government, including but not limited to the executive office (president/prime minister), Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education, competing ministries, decentralized government levels, and local leaders. In doing, we elucidate how politics permeate nearly all accountability relationships in education systems and the likelihood that any given program will positively impact learning.
The decisions that students make about their educational attainment have profound impacts on their future economic, demographic, and social outcomes. These decisions, however, do not happen in a vacuum. There is a long tradition of research that studies inequality in educational decisionmaking and the various factors that contribute to creating, or reducing, this inequality. However, inequality in educational attainment persists. This dissertation takes a multimethod approach to identifying sources of inequality and evaluating policies aimed at reducing it. In three distinct empirical chapters, this dissertation extends the literature on educational decision making, expanding our knowledge of how inequality is created and maintained. The first empirical paper, evaluates two âfree tuitionâ policy designs, informing policy conversations about how to reduce economic inequality in selective college attendance. Proposed âfree collegeâ policies vary widely in design. The simplest set tuition to zero for everyone. More targeted approaches limit free tuition to those who demonstrate need through an application process. We experimentally test the effects of these two models on the schooling decisions of low-income students. An unconditional free tuition offer from a large public university substantially increases application and enrollment rates. A free tuition offer contingent on proof of need has a much smaller effect on application and none on enrollment. These results are consistent with students placing a high value on financial certainty when making schooling decisions. The second paper focuses on the role of social context in shaping student decision making. There is a long history of sociological research that identifies the essential role of social forces in shaping educational attainment; however, siblings have been understudied as a direct mechanism contributing to educational decision making, overshadowed by the focus on parents and institutions. Using longitudinal qualitative interviews with 36 high-achieving high school seniors from families with low incomes, I explore the unique role that older siblings play in shaping the postsecondary decision making of their younger siblings. I find that the support provided by siblings is distinct from other social resources. The intensity of the relationship, and the internal and external relevance, or the fact the information shared is recent and personalized to the studentsâ circumstances, each make this relationship unique. By studying only parents or considering only the role of parent educational or economic circumstances in contributing to inequality, we ignore an important source of heterogeneity in the lives of students from families with low incomes. The final empirical chapter describes gaps in postsecondary educational attainment between urban, rural, and suburban communities using student-level longitudinal data from the full population of Michigan public high school students. Using several recent high school cohorts, I document rates of college attendance, college selectivity, and bachelorâs degree completion overall and within subgroups, providing updated estimates for urbanicity gaps in college attainment. I find that there is less racial and economic inequality in college outcomes within rural areas; however, it does not come from improved outcomes among racially minoritized students or those from families with low incomes. Students in rural areas from traditionally advantaged groups have substantially lower rates of college attainment than their suburban and city peers. Therefore, while media narratives about White, rural students falling behind are not inaccurate, they tell an incomplete story. This chapter highlights some key areas for policy intervention to better target the distinct needs of students.
This paper provides an overview of concepts and methods used in analysis of public school financing in U.S. States. I begin by providing an overview of trends in public school financing in the U.S. and addressing what the research tells us regarding how and why money matters for providing high quality public schooling. Next, I address core concepts for framing the goals of education finance systems in U.S. States -specifically, that the primary goal is to provide all children, regardless of where they reside or attend school -with equal opportunity to achieve a common set of measurable outcomes. Next, I address methods and models for estimating the costs to meet these goals and provide descriptive evidence on where U.S. States fall short of these goals, and models explaining how and why U.S. States fail to achieve these goals. I conclude by addressing how the highly decentralized U.S. system of financing schools would benefit from more national involvement.
Abstract There are large variations in the choice of a decentralized or centralized education finance system across countries. We examine the financing of public primary education in China as a unique case study. China has successfully established modern universal basic education in the century from 1912 with very different education finance systems in different historical periods, ranging from a completely decentralized education finance system to a completely centralized system. This chapter presents a brief summary of Chinaâs public primary education finance reforms and then provides a credible causal evaluation of its most recent centralized reform in 2006 using confidential school finance data as well as survey and census data. Similar to the recent literature on the centralization education finance reforms in the United States, we find that the 2006 reform in China leads to an increase in educational spending that translates to increases in student school enrollment and academic achievement. We also document unintended reform consequences that call for further research and policy design improvements.
This article examines how teachers in postâcoup Honduras approached implementing neoliberal school finance reforms with which they disagreed. The laws in question decentralize national public education and demand that teachers secure funding for basic school infrastructure and academic programs from private businesses. I show how teachers reluctantly engaged aspects of this legislation, but for their own reasons, and suggest that their partial compliance is illuminative of how teachers in other contexts may approach policy implementation.
This three-paper dissertation studies education systems where decision-making power and funding is shared across different levels of government, their achievement levels and inequality across socieoconomic groups. \nThe first chapter, âPopulation Density and Educational Inequality: The Role of Public School Choice and Accountabilityâ relates National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test differences to levels of population agglomeration. Using detailed individual level-data, I establish that being in a denser area is associated with an increase in the socioeconomic gap of about 1 percent for each 10 percent increase in density levels. This is robust to the use of a geographic regression discontinuity design that leverages discontinuities in density across neighboring commuting zones. It is consistent with a theory whereby density leads to greater school socioeconomic segregation. The findings underscore that conventional democratic accountability mechanisms are insufficient to overcome this segregation.\nIn the second chapter, âThe Quality and Access Tradeoff in Decentralization Reform: Evidence from Education in the OECD and Spainâ (co-authored with Susana Cordeiro Guerra) we study the effect of decentralization reform on education outcomes. While there are theoretical reasons for bringing the locus of decision-making closer to citizens, our knowledge of the effects of decentralization is limited. We first draw on a panel dataset from OECD countries to capture changes on where different decisions are made and their effects on outcomes. Decentralizing has a broadly negative effect on quality indicators but a positive effect on access indicators. We test the argument that upon decentralizing, some regional governments have incentives to assert their legitimacy and pursue highly visible and short-term policies, such as expanding access. Exploiting the exogenous timing of decentralization in Spain (in 1980-2000), we find that variation in the degree of regional assertiveness is related to the magnitude and sign of the effects of decentralization. \nThe third paper, âThe Relation between Local Financing and Education Outcomes: Evidence from US School Districtsâ explores the effects of locally raised revenue. I hypothesize that a higher local revenue share will be related to better school performance, as citizens will be more demanding and in control of the school budget. I look at test scores from the 2007 NAEP, with three empirical approaches. First, I exploit changes in house prices during the 2000 to 2007 boom. Second, I use variation from state fiscal regimes; and third, I leverage covariation within a geographic area. Consistently, local revenue share is associated with about .3-.7% SD higher scores per additional percentage point of local revenue share. It is also associated with greater inequality by socioeconomic status. I find evidence that locally financed districts differ by spending more on teacher salaries and less on administration and that Tiebout competition amplifies the effect of local financing. I find no evidence of a relation between local revenue and citizen participation in education governance. These findings suggest an important behavioral dimension of local financing that would support its continued use.
Proponents of the charter school movement often claim that the decentralized, autonomous nature of charter schools from district and state authority allows teachers greater influence over school policy both instructionally and administratively. Using a data set of 1,427 New York City schools, we empirically examine the extent to which organizational characteristics predict the amount of policy influence charter schools and traditional public schools grant to teachers. Results indicate not only do charter schools grant their teachers less policy influence but also other organizational features are stronger predictors of teacher policy influence including several nonlinear relationships. Directions for future research are discussed.
In Trinidad and Tobago, there have been substantive efforts to reform mathematics education. Through the implementation of new policies, the reformers have promoted changes in mathematics curriculum and instruction. A focus of the reform has been that of increasing opportunities for students to engage in reasoning and proving. However, little is known about how these policies affect the opportunities for reasoning and proof in the written curriculum, the teaching of proof, and students' learning. Furthermore, we are yet to know how the high-stake assessment measures interact with these new policies to impact the teaching and learning of proof. \n \nIn this dissertation, my overarching question asks: What are the implications of reform on the teaching and learning of secondary school mathematics in Trinidad and Tobago? To answer this question, I conducted three studies, which examined the content, teaching, and studentsâ conceptions. All the studies are situated in the teaching reasoning and proof when introducing geometry concepts. In the first study, I conduct a curriculum analysis focused on examining the opportunities for reasoning and proof in the three recommended secondary school textbooks. In the second study, I conduct classroom observations of teachersâ geometry instruction focusing on opportunities for engaging students in reasoning and proof. In the third study, I examine geometry studentsâ conceptions of proof. The three studies are intended to provide an overview of the impact of reform on instructional issues in relation to the dynamics between teachers, student, and content (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003). \n \nFor the first study, I adapt a framework developed by Otten, Gilbertson, Males, and Clark (2014) to investigate the quality and quantity of the opportunities for students to engage in or reflect on reasoning and proof. The findings highlight some unique characteristics of the recommended textbooks such as, (a) the promotion of the explanatory role of proof through the affordances of what I define as the Geometric Calculation with Number and Explanation (GCNE) exercises, (b) the necessary scaffolding of proof construction through activities and exercises promoting pattern identification, conjecturing, and developing of informal non-proof arguments, and (c) the varying advocacy for Geometry as an area in the curriculum where students can experience the work of real mathematicians and see the intellectual of proof in their mathematical experiences. All these characteristics align with the reformersâ vision for the teaching and learning of reasoning and proof in secondary school mathematics. \n \nIn the second study, I examine the nature of the teaching of reasoning and proof in secondary school. I use classroom observations along with pre- and post-observations interview data of three teachers to determine (a) the classroom microculture (i.e., classroom mathematical practices and sociomathematical norms), (b) teachersâ pedagogical decisions, and (c) teachersâ use of the Caribbean Secondary Examination Certificate (CSEC) examination materials and textbooks. I also determine whether the teachersâ instruction demonstrate the four characteristics of reform-based mathematics teaching (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, & Sherin, 2004). My analysis of classroom observations of the three teachers suggests that their instructional practices exhibit elements of reform-based instruction. These include teachersâ use of open-ended and direct questions to solicit studentsâ mathematical ideas and teachersâ consideration of students as the source of mathematical ideas. Each teacher established sociomathematical norms that governed how and when a student can ask questions. In this case, questioning helped students articulate their ideas when responding to questions and clarifying their understanding of other's ideas when they posed a question. Teachers also established sociomathematical norms that outlined what counts as a valid proof and what counts as an acceptable answer during instruction. The aforementioned norms supported the expectation that students must always provide explanations for their mathematical thinking, which is another characteristic of reform-based teaching. Teachers used group work and whole class discussions to offer opportunities for collaborative learning, which facilitated their creation of a social constructivist environment for learning reasoning and proof. Teachers used the reform-oriented curriculum materials to provide opportunities for construction of proofs. However, the textbooks and curriculum were limited in their support for proving some geometrical results. Overall, the teachers emphasized the making and testing of conjectures, which afforded students with authentic mathematical experiences that promoted the development of mathematical knowledge. \n \nIn the third study, I use the six principles of proof understanding (McCrone & Martin, 2009) to examine 21 studentsâ conceptions of proof. I use semi-structured interviews to gather studentsâ perspectives of (a) the roles of proof, (b) structure and generality of proof, and (c) the opportunities for proof in the curriculum materials. The findings indicate that the students considered proof as serving the roles of explanation, verification, systemization, and appreciation in mathematics. The latter role helps students see the value and purpose of the mathematical results they learn (a) for applications during problem solving and (b) within the axiomatic system of Geometry results. The aforementioned roles also help students see the intellectual need for reasoning and proof in their mathematical experiences. Studentsâ talk suggests that, their teachersâ and the external examinersâ expectations of the structure, generality, and validity of proof influence their notions of what constitutes a proof. Students also consider the examination opportunities that require the development of reasoned explanations as possible opportunities to construct proof arguments. \n \nThe combined findings of these three studies could help researchers understand the implications of the recent reform recommendations on the teaching and learning of proof in Trinidad and Tobago. Firstly, these findings can be useful to policy makers and education stakeholders in their future efforts for developing the national curriculum, revision or development of instructional policies, and recommendations of textbooks and instructional support materials. Secondly, these findings can help curriculum designers, examiners, and teachers in creating future opportunities in the national curriculum and CSEC mathematics syllabus to support studentsâ learning of proof in Trinidad and Tobago. Thirdly, these findings can help educational stakeholders understand the type of support that is needed for teachersâ future professional development and studentsâ competency with reasoning and proof on CSEC examinations. This international study is a case of the larger issues surrounding reform implications in a centralized governed educational system, which offers uniform prescriptive guidance for teaching and uniform curriculum support for learning. Furthermore this work potentially adds to the ongoing discussions in mathematics education about the interplay between policy, practice, and student learning.
Over the period 2007â2013, a series of undertakings were made to introduce fundamental elements of decentralized education finance to Egypt. In 2009, 8.4M Egyptian pounds (EGP) of the Government of Egyptâs (GOE) budget was decentralized to every primary school in three pilot governorates. By 2013, EGP 1.2B of the GOEâs money had been decentralized nationwide. This paper describes what these undertakings strived to achieve, what specifically was done to achieve these objectives, the degree to which these objectives were achieved, the reasons why they were achieved to the degree they were with particular attention paid to the institutional and political context within which these undertakings unfolded. The account of the technical work that was undertaken to decentralize these funds is important, but more important is the account of the interplay between the technical work, the fact that this work supported a GOE-led initiative, and the volatile political environmentâpre-revolution, revolution, and post-revolution Egyptâin which the work was done for it is here where important lessons about reform emerge.
In 2014, the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP) held its thirty-ninth annual conference in San Antonio, Texas. The relevance of the host city for much of the research presented at the conference was not lost on most members.A little over forty years ago the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in San Antonio v. Rodriguez [411 U.S. 1 (1973)] that education is not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Parents had brought suit arguing that basing school financing on property wealth resulted in the unequal provision of education, presumably a fundamental right. The Supreme Court decision was a close one, at 5 to 4. If the decision had gone the other way, we would likely now have a national education system. Instead, what evolved is a complex system of education policy making, often described as a âmarble cake federalism,â where different levels of government intermingle in different ways in policies and programs or as a âRube-Goldberg-likeâ machine where complicated hoops and hurdles are required to produce relatively simple policy inputs.Something else has changed in the last forty years. The United States led the world throughout the twentieth century in expanding access to secondary and college education (Goldin and Katz 2000; Goldin 2001) but it is no longer the leader in accessânor for that matter doesit lead in performance. Relative to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, U.S. performance on the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2012) is middling at best, and secondary school completion is similar. And the rest of the world is fast catching up with the United States in college completion. In 1995, the United States ranked first in college graduation among OECD countries. Today, it ranks 19th out of the 28 countries studied (OECD 2014).In addition, the United Statesâtraditionally seen as the land of opportunityâhas relatively low educational mobility: The fraction of young adults in the United States with education levels lower than their parents is higher than the OECD average. Indeed, out of the 21 countries included in the analysis, the United States ranks 18th (OECD 2014). Lack of social mobility weakens social cohesion and trust in a society's institutions.Education ranking of countries is more than a simple top ten list. Education quality is a key ingredient for a country's economic growth (Nelson and Phelps 1966; Hanushek and Woessmann 2007). Major national economic policy leaders are increasingly stressing the importance of education for the country's economic well-being (e.g., Bernanke 2007). President Obama warns that âCountries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrowâ (Obama 2011). Indeed, he has called education âthe economic issue of our timeâ (Obama 2010).In a speech on inequality, Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen (2014) identifies education as a key âcornerstoneâ of opportunity affecting intergenerational mobility. She points out that, unlike most other advanced countries, students from low income families in the United States often receive less public education support than students from more advantaged families because school financing is heavily based on subnational (state and local) taxes. The old problem associated with the Rodriguez case emerges again, but perhaps in a broader way. Most of our economic competitors have not only more equal funding but also national systems of education where both education policies, including performance standards and funding, are largely set for the country as a whole.The focus of this essay, as the title suggests, is to advocate for new and renewed efforts in analyzing the dynamics behind shifts in education governance in the United States and their effects on national policies, practices, and performance going forward.Much of the work presented at AEFP conferences evaluates education policies and practices using experimental methods, with random assignment, or rigorous quasi-experimental strategies, such as regression discontinuity designs. This work will, and should, always be a large and important part of AEFP's portfolio. It provides policy makers with valuable information about the likely productivity effects of different courses of action. The extent and ways in which policy makers and other influential parties respond to such information, however, is complicated. And the complications are also worth studying.In short, I am suggesting that it may serve us, and the field, well to broaden our horizon. In some sense, I suggest we revisit some of our earlier roots, and expend greater effort examining cross-level institutional incentives and constraints that affect federal, state, and local policy making, as well as the resources and political pressures at different levels that shape policies and foster or inhibit productive education change. This is a call for more research on the political economy of education policy making.Constitutionally, states control what is taught and who teaches. Curriculum and standards are formally within the purview of the state, as are human capital policies that set teacher and administrator certification requirements, hiring, pay, tenure, and so forth. The traditional federal role has been one of equity with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as its centerpiece. Federal funds have largely been intended to target special services to disadvantaged students without supplanting state and local funds. Accountability exercised by the federal government historically has been pretty much limited to distributional accountability. That is, ensuring that federal funds, which represent a little more than 10 percent of expenditures, are directed to disadvantaged students.The last few years, however, have been a game-changing time for federal education policy in the United States, with major implications for state and local education efforts and their direction. The federal efforts are heavily driven by a recognition of the importance of education policy for national economic objectives, as well as traditional equity objectives. For education researchers, it has been particularly heady because research has played a big role in shaping the thinking behind many of the changes, and continues to do so. The story of the game-changing is familiar to education policy observers, but a quick review of what has happened, and what is still uncertain, may help set the stage for thoughts on where additional research on education governance might be insightful.Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001 was the first big game changer for federal education policy since the 1960s and, in many ways, it opened the door for more recent, bolder efforts.The law required states to establish academic performance standards for all students within their state, and to hold schools and school districts accountable for student progress in meeting those standards. Schools not making adequate academic progress faced sanctions. Standards and accountability, once the sole responsibility of state and local education agencies, were now required by Washington, even if many of the details were left to the states. In addition, teachers were expected to meet âhigh qualityâ standards, that is, meet state certification requirements. States could opt out of the NCLB requirements but they risked losing federal dollars. Some states balked at the law's provisions, and the increased reach of the federal government, but all eventually signed on. The legislation likely never would have passed without the strong bipartisan leadership of President George W. Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy.The expectation, specified in the law (which is still on the books at the time of this writing), is that all students would reach state-established academic proficiency levels by the 2013â14 school year. It turned out to be a humbling pipe dream.In 2011, about half of the nation's schools did not make adequate progress. Four states had school failure rates approaching 90 percent (Usher 2012). This was in spite of the fact that an easy way to meet the proficiency level was to lower standards. In fact, an analysis by the National Center for Education Statistics, using the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as the standard, found that not only did states vary in the rigor of their standards, but fifteen states had lowered their standards between 2005 and 2007 to avoid sanctions (NCES 2011). A more recent analysis by Gary Phillips (2014), using international benchmarks, found that the standards gap between states with the highest standards and those with the lowest standards represents between three to four grade levels of performance. He concludes: â50 states going in 50 different directions cannot lead to national success that is globally competitiveâ (p. 4).But the story doesn't end thereâthe game changed again. Another set of major education policy shifts emerged in the latter part of the decade and is currently underway, and then another. All are intended to raise education performance nationally. All increase the federal role, and all are designed in ways to induce state cooperation.Under the Obama Administration, teacher policiesâtraditionally determined by statesâtook center stage. Three notable teacher policy shifts mark Game Changer 2. The first shifted the focal unit of accountability from schools, as in NCLB, to teachers. The second shifted the basis of teacher quality from input (i.e., qualifications) to output (student performance). The third shifted accountability based on student academic proficiency levels to accountability based on student academic gains. These are major policy changes.The shifts were accomplished through incentive-based reform initiatives developed by the executive branch of the government under the financial challenges of the Great Recession. State and local coffers were coming up short, and education jobs were at risk. The economic stimulus funds (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) provided $100 billion for education support. The funds were critically needed but they came with strings or, at least, a strong expectation that states focus on four priority areas of reform. One key area was âincreasing teacher effectivenessâ partly through evaluating teachers on the basis of student achievement.1The Obama Administration also used part of the stimulus funds to spur new ways of doing things. A national competitionâRace to the Topâwas established with $4.35 billion to support states proposing to make dramatic progress on the reform activities. The winners would be the pacesetters of reform. The criteria used to evaluate state proposals gave heaviest weight to reforms focused on âimproving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance.â Weight was also given to proposals that fully developed and used individual-level longitudinal data systems to track individual student performance gains to inform instructional efforts. At the time the NCLB legislation was passed, only a small handful of states had the data capacity to assess student gains and to link students to their teachers. By 2011, it was different. Since 2005, the U.S. Department of Education has awarded more than half a billion dollars to states to develop individual level longitudinal education data systems. The number of states able to link student data with their teacher increased from four in 2005 to forty-four in 2011.Most states, hungry for financial support, competed to be bold reformers of human capital policies, an entrenched policy area that was traditionally mired in politics, complex sets of state laws, and practices heavily shaped by local collective bargaining agreements. To ensure that real reform would occur, state proposals had to be endorsed by state officials, local administrators, and unions. Eleven states and the District of Columbia were winners in the first two rounds of the competition and an additional seven states won awards in 2011.2 In all, nearly 40 percent of states competed and won, thereby accepting the human capital reform challenge.New changes emerged in 2011, again with incentives provided by the executive branch to induce state pursuit of favored policies. A divided U.S. Congress was unable to come to agreement on reauthorization of NCLB, and many schools and districts were facing serious sanctions for not achieving the performance levels specified in NCLB. The Obama Administration agreed to grant states waivers from key provisions in NCLB law but, again, there were strings attached. In exchange for relief of some of the terms of NCLB, states had to propose a plan in line with the Administration's reform agenda. Again, key among the items was evaluating teachers, in part, on the basis of studentsâ test scores. By August 2012, thirty-three states had been granted waivers. Many waivers expired at the end of the 2013â14 academic year, and the U.S. Department of Education granted extensions to states for another year on the basis of reform progress. Indeed, seven states that had been especially successful with developing teacher evaluation systems were eligible to apply for a fast-tracked extended renewal through 2018â19. In effect, many states are continuing to negotiate their education policies with the executive branch of the federal government.Although the financial incentives and waivers, combined with tough economic times, help explain why states were willing to take on the thorny problem of teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation, they do not explain why the Obama Administration focused laser-like on teachers.The policy emphasis shift from schools to teachers was driven largely by research findings that began emerging in the mid-2000sâfindings that are difficult to dismiss. Numerous studies by different researchers, utilizing data from different states using different tests and in different policy of this research has been by AEFP key findings are the most important school student performance. to the and by more studies that teacher quality for a of the in student performance than other school findings also that teachers have effects on and of their students and productivity among teachers is In a Hanushek that teachers the top of the performance are for about a year and a half of academic gains for their teachers the produce only about a half year in teacher effectiveness within schools is at as large as the between Again, since studies have found in teacher effectiveness within schools that are often than the between studies based on longitudinal data from states the teacher do not represent teacher quality percent of a school is for and academic and heavily in teacher and higher has but research the are not as strong as For teachers over their first years of the to to out by about year In short, the findings suggest that we have traditionally a large part of our instructional dollars on or that to have little on student performance as traditionally and findings policy If teachers are the of large in student we to teachers. are the making the most in The large in productivity among teachers an that doing much is, are not as traditional human capital policies in education to if the is as large as the between schools, basing policies on performance will much of the in by the policy initiatives described a strong emphasis on teacher performance between and 2012, more than states legislation annual of teachers, based partly on student test and the to key such as 2012). effects were In 2007 in for percent of teachers in their third year of in 2012, this to percent In the last few years, of states have changed These changes are in a large by the Education of the are also in the in brought that protected teachers from and thereby studentsâ state to an equal The were heavily based on research findings about teacher The found the research and ruled for the A case is making its way through the in has also about ways to develop both through programs and in this area is and often For a random of for school teachers, a target that we might would be likely to from no on teacher or student 2011). States, and began in to link effectiveness to programs for both accountability and By 2014, states teacher performance data of with their teacher is on both what as well as to for research is in the or of and associated a A recent review by National for of Education found that, there is teacher programs are important for teacher effectiveness in the more research is needed to their In the what is is that some teachers are more than and are to develop more of teacher effectiveness using of the last decade of education reform in the United States has led to agreement among policy on at two reform and academic standards. and what is taught are both The focus on teachers was we are with what in the standards (i.e., the and performance that NCLB required standards, but as by the were states. In addition, the accountability provisions in NCLB presented States were their standards and the public and the federal government a or for their Changer this problem by to establish national standards in and for State Standards that are with international are the of reform. At a they the basis for state policies and state accountability policies. they would have little President of the State Board of it we from the of state standards academic standards so do policies to student and school accountability. many other policies be and including state instructional and college teacher and other the federal government could not establish national standards for the states, but it did their by points to states that standards in the to the and by favored in for states that the National Association and the of State had led the of the standards in and control their with a to the of the standards but support from the and was large and The provided support and over in financial support to help states work on standards. The also to political support for the standards by to key institutional the political including teacher the of and the National Education the U.S. of and political on the right and and influential state the federal government did not financial support for the of national standards, it did support the of for states to 2011, states and the District of Columbia had the standards, and did so states did The however, is a target as is in at a handful of states that are to or the standards. The to teachers of the has also as well as the to to be is the federal control in is seen as an by the federal government that is likely to lead to greater federal control over instructional and the of individual student the teachers and their about for teacher a the standards in the those of most states. is a may an even in teacher effectiveness than we currently In addition, to be teacher and instructional are not fully in The of has for a on and its in has support for the such as the passed a in the in its and it as an effort by a of are for the are for the will all this are we and what we will be the for education quality and education and eventually for increased national economic and national social and economic the last two or the role of the executive branch of the federal government in education policy making increased political under the leadership of George W. George W. and have to this in ways the of national education standards and a national system for educational accountability, even the U.S. such to the states. At a the of the federal and state levels of government are currently in in and and will take in to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Congress where many recent policies, such as annual student as an by the federal executive branch that be that affect the governance of education in the United States serious and is at AEFP could a number of research associated with the political economy of U.S. education and in ways to the and on education governance would in focus and from much of our and important work evaluating education practices and policies, but it would this It would help us the dynamics of reform in the United economy in the of a policy research and they for analysis and of come to The first three focus on what we might call the political economy of education information the education policy and policy These are especially key as education policies have shifted from education policies to policies using relatively performance The on the role of to what and in what ways, information about the of education performance affect policy findings about different to student performance (e.g., teacher policies, policies, and graduation more or less or influential in different ways, at the state, and local policy In what ways do of information and to that information states with different political or economic to what extent do standards and performance information state and local spur through competition and another there an of that, under strong information to education To what extent do political leaders to performance information in ways that might affect its to the what are the and that for education reforms at different levels of government and different what are the of different going The role of is among the most to are a major political at the national and state policy and a policies at the local level through collective are but have in important areas of education policy are the most important school input affecting student performance. are in the difficult of the of all their it is increasingly that some teachers are much more than from on an earlier were