Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:
Lessons from International Analysis
Ludger Wößmann
International Seminar
“Demand, Autonomy and
Accountability in Schooling”
OECD and
Department of Education and Training,
Flemish Community of Belgium
15-16 May, 2006
“Empowering” the Demand Side
• Basically all countries:
– Ultimate responsibility and supervision by the state
• But: public vs. private involvement in 2 broad tasks:
– Operation of schools
– Funding of schools
• Public-private partnership (PPP) = any collaboration
between public and private entities
Two forms of PPP:
1.Public operation + private funding
• E.g., parents have to pay tuition fees for public schools
2.Private operation + public funding
• Private operation by business, church, …
• Public funding through base funding or vouchers
Public Funding and Public Operation
of Schools
Public funding
1.00
FINNOR
SWE
ISL
DEU
CZE LVA
CHE RUS
USAPOL
AUTGBR
PRT
HUN
GRC
LUX
NLD
DNK
IRL
BEL
ESP
BRA
0.75
FRA
NZL
ITA
JPN
0.50
KOR
MEX
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Public operation
International Differences in Public
Funding and Public Operation of Schools
Average
Share of
Average share of public Average share of public
share of
publicly operated Difference funding in publicly
funding in privately Difference
public funding
schools
operated schools
operated schools
(K)
(L)
(M)
(N)
(O)
(P)
BEL
87.5
24.6
63.0
95.1
85.0
10.1
CHE
93.8
93.5
0.3
98.5
25.5
73.0
DEU
97.3
95.9
1.4
98.2
77.1
21.1
FIN
99.8
97.2
2.6
99.9
98.3
1.5
FRA
75.5
77.8
-2.4
77.3
69.1
8.2
GBR
89.8
90.8
-1.0
98.7
2.2
96.4
GRC
83.7
95.8
-12.0
87.4
0.0
87.4
IRL
91.1
39.5
51.6
98.0
86.6
11.4
ISL
99.4
99.2
0.2
99.9
40.4
59.5
ITA
75.2
94.2
-19.0
79.2
10.1
69.1
JPN
72.5
69.6
2.9
88.4
36.0
52.4
KOR
49.1
50.6
-1.5
54.9
43.3
11.6
MEX
36.8
84.5
-47.6
43.6
0.0
43.6
NLD
94.7
26.0
68.7
94.7
94.7
0.0
NOR
99.5
98.5
1.0
99.8
82.3
17.5
RUS
93.5
100.0
-6.5
93.5
SWE
99.9
96.6
3.3
99.9
99.3
0.6
USA
91.6
94.6
-2.9
95.6
22.1
73.6
Mean
86.9
83.0
3.9
91.2
65.9
25.4
Why Should It Matter?
Positive aspects of involvement of:
Public sector
Private sector
Provision
Inculcation of
beliefs and
cultural values
Incentives for cost
containment and
qualitative innovation
Funding
Enabling choice
for credit-constrained
families
Increased
accountability
Student Achievement
in the Two Forms of PPPs
80
Math
score
(relative
to lowest
category) 60
74.6
36.6
40
36.7
20
high
0.0
0
low
Public operation
high
low
Public funding
Public Operation/Funding and
Math Performance across Countries
Country-level public-private measures
(Q)
(R)
(S)
(T)
(U)
Top left quadrant
School-level public-private measures
(V)
(W)
(X)
(Y)
37.93 ***
(12.52)
Bottom left quad.
0.02
(7.73)
Bottom right quad. -36.64 ***
(8.17)
-74.55 ***
Public operation
-93.80 *** -193.15 ** -19.68 ***
(14.78)
Public funding
(13.81)
24.51
91.05
(26.69) (27.03)
Interaction
(94.26)
***
-24.69 ***
(2.40)
(2.69)
3.73
1.64
18.56
(77.00)
(3.53)
(3.96)
R
2
72,493
72,493
72,493
72,493
72,493
29
0.314
29
0.309
29
0.293
29
0.315
29
0.316
(5.98)
***
30.18 ***
(6.40)
-20.37 ***
113.45
(109.86)
Observations
Strata
PSUs
-9.05
(7.63)
72,493
29
4,870
0.297
72,493
29
4,870
0.293
72,493
29
4,870
0.298
72,493
29
4,870
0.298
Public Operation/Funding and
Reading/Science Performance across Countries
Reading
Country-level publicSchool-level publicprivate measures
private measures
(Z)
(AA)
(AB)
(AC)
(AD)
Top left quadrant
Bottom left quad.
28.28 **
(10.45)
(12.45)
-9.56
5.86
Bottom right quad. -13.06
(6.61)
**
-18.36 ***
(5.76)
Public operation
(6.53)
-56.95
***
(10.71)
Public funding
59.06
(23.62)
Interaction
R
2
School-level publicprivate measures
(AH)
(AI)
17.00
(6.39)
Observations
Strata
PSUs
Science
Country-level publicprivate measures
(AE)
(AF)
(AG)
130,242
130,242
29
0.310
29
0.311
**
-35.15
-19.27
(70.13)
(2.30)
78.07
8.35
(59.05)
(3.29)
***
(4.88)
**
17.42
***
(5.37)
-24.80
-15.91
(84.64)
(6.30)
130,242 130,242
29
29
4,882
0.311
0.306
-55.61 *** -183.89 ** -17.94 ***
-7.04
130,242
29
4,882
0.306
(11.86)
(80.54)
(2.42)
22.07
-90.88
0.79
(20.49)
(66.11)
(3.36)
**
-6.31
(5.01)
9.39 *
(5.24)
146.01
-15.11 **
(94.11)
(6.41)
72,388
72,388
72,388
29
0.254
29
0.256
29
0.257
72,388
29
4,870
0.252
72,388
29
4,870
0.252
Interactions of Operation and Funding
Effect of public funding depending on type of operation:
Effect of public funding on reading score
20
17.4
15
10
5
1.5
0
Private operation
Public operation
Autonomy and Accountability
 Complementarity: school autonomy + external exams
• School autonomy allows:
– Use of superior local knowledge (good for learning)
– Opportunistic behaviour (bad for learning)
• = Decentralised decision-makers get away with behaving in ways
that advance their own interest rather than the system’s interest
• If there is (a) asymmetric (decentralised) information
= imperfect monitoring = limited accountability
• And (b) opposing interests
Autonomy may be good or bad for student
performance
– Depending on whether in a given decision-making area,
• there are local knowledge leads
and/or incentives for opportunistic behaviour
Autonomy and Accountability
• External exams can ease asymmetric information
– Provide information on how individual students perform
relative to national (or regional) student population
Ease the monitoring problems inherent in education
Align incentives of local decision-makers with system goals
Make it more likely that schools act according to the goals
of the system if they are given autonomy
 By introducing accountability,
external exams ease the “bad” effects of autonomy,
ensuring a “good” net effect
Effects of Autonomy on Student Performance
— With and Without External Exams —
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
Math
test
score
80
76.2
70
55.5
60
50
40
30
20
23.7
Yes
10
0
0.0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
School autonomy
over teacher salaries
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
Math
test
score
40
36.4
35
32.5
30
25
20
20.8
15
10
Yes
5
0
0.0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
School autonomy
over teacher salaries
PISA
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
Math
test
score
80
70
67.6
64.1
60
50
40
30
20
22.7
Yes
10
0
0.0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
Teacher influence
on resource funding
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
Math
test
score
40
35
30
23.6
25
20
15
10
11.7
4.5
Yes
5
0
0.0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
School autonomy in
determining course content
PISA
Digression on Standardized Testing
– With and Without Standards/Goals –
Math
test
score
40
35
30
27.9
25
19.1
20
15
10
10.2
Yes
5
0
0.0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
Standardized
tests
PISA
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and Without Local Knowledge Lead –
Math
test
score
80
70
60
50
43.2
44.3
40
30
20
10
Yes
9.8
0
0.0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
School autonomy
over school budget
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– With Opportunism and Without Local Knowledge Lead –
Math
test
score
80
70
60
46.5
50
45.1
40
30
20
Yes
10
6.1
0
0.0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
Collective teacher
influence on curriculum
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Autonomy, External Exams and Student Performance
– Without Opportunism and With Local Knowledge Lead –
Math
test
score
80
70
60
56.2
43.7
50
40
30
20
Yes
16.4
10
0.0
0
No
No
Central
exams
Yes
Individual teacher
influence on curriculum
TIMSS + TIMSS-R
Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:
Main Results from International Analyses
• Public-private partnerships:
– Public school operation  student performance
– Public school funding  student performance
Most effective school systems: PPP where the state finances
the schools and contracts the private sector to run them
• Autonomy and external exams:
– External exit exams  student performance
– School autonomy  in systems with external exit exams
Complementarity: Decentralisation works – if combined
with external examination.
– Education policy should combine the two:
• Setting and testing standards externally
• but leaving it up to schools how to pursue them.
Demand, Autonomy and Accountability:
Some Unresolved Issues
• Equity of student outcomes
• Non-cognitive skills as alternative outcome measures
• Interactions between choice, autonomy and
accountability
• Additional measures of choice, autonomy and
accountability
• PISA 2003 data
The EENEE Website
– www.education-economics.org –
• www.education-economics.org as a forum to promote and
disseminate research on the Economics of Education in Europe:
Economics of
Education
References
EENEE
Mapping of
Researchers
Symposia
What’s New