Production Function Estimates Developed countries

There is long-standing debate and controversy as to whether school resources have an association with student achievement. There are a number of research studies that have found positive effects (Hedges & Green1996; Krueger 1999), while others have found negligible or even negative affects (Hanushke 1999).

72

Researchers have focused on specific factors such as teacher characteristics (for example, Rivinkin, Hanushek, and Kain 2005), peer effects (Hanushek et al 2003), class-size (Angrist & Lavy 1999; Kreuger 2003) and family size (Hanushek 1992). Hanushek (1986, 2003) based partially on an extensive review of the US literature concluded that school inputs such as teacher salaries and classroom size did not matter in relation to student test score performance. Additionally, he argued that increased school expenditure does not provide the requisite incentives within schools to improve learning outcomes. Rather, it is mainly family background in terms of parental income and education that are most important determinants of student performance. Hanushek (1979, 1986, 1997) in several reviews of the US literature concluded that ‘there is no strong or consistent relationship between school resources and student performance’. However, others have criticised Hanushek’s methods of selecting studies for the reviews and the interpretation of the data (Krueger, 2003).

It is noteworthy that the studies reviewed by Hanushek (1989; 1997) are primarily production function studies for developed and developing countries and often include school process factors emphasized by school effectiveness research. In recent years, there has been considerable change in school input; class sizes have reduced, qualifications of teachers have risen, and expenditure per pupil has also increased. However, there is little evidence that demonstrates that any significant change in student performance has accompanied this growth in resources devoted to schools.

He summarized more than 200 empirical studies that focused on input and output relationships that estimate the education production function in public schools in the US. He concluded that there is no consistency and an ambiguous relationship between teacher related factors and pupil learning outcomes in developed countries. The data demonstrate (see Table 4.1), that there are some positive and significant relationships compared with a considerably higher number of insignificant relationships and also negative relationships between key school input resources for developed countries and output measures. In contrast, in developing countries the data set out in Table 4.2 show that a different pattern occurs with more positive and significant relationships. There was a high proportion of insignificant

73

relationships with regard to teacher experience and preventable negative relationships with the key school input resources in developing countries. Similarly, analyses in less-developed countries have shown a similar inconsistency of estimated resource effects as were found in the US.

However, these studies do not incorporate the process part of education which plays a key and important role; for example the teaching learning process, the quantity and quality of instructional materials and amount of time spent in the classroom by the teacher. Therefore, this study has been criticized by some, especially on methodological grounds (Hedges and Greenwarld 1994).

Table 4-1 Findings of 376 Production Function estimates on the relationship between Student Performance and the key School Resources in Developed countries Key School Resources Number of

estimate

Statistically Significant (%) Positive Negative Insignificant

Teacher–Pupil Ratios (PTR) 276 14 14 72

Teacher Education 170 9 5 86

Teacher Experience 206 29 5 66

Expenditure per Pupil 163 27 7 66

Source: Hanushek (1997a)

Developing countries

In developing countries, a number of research studies on the determinants of student performance have revealed that school resources might have a stronger impact on student performance.

For example, Heyneman and Loxley (1983) analyze the data from the Second International Mathematics and Science Study (SIMSS) and concluded that the relationship between school resources and student performance was stronger in developing countries than in developed countries.

Table 4-2 also shows a more consistent pattern of relationships between school resources and outcomes compared to developed countries. It is clear that there is, nevertheless, a high level of inconsistency. The relationship was statistically insignificant in a sizeable percentage of studies. Many researchers, therefore, have

74

questioned the view that the relationship between school inputs and student outcomes are stronger and more consistent in developing countries.

Table 4-2 Findings of 96 Production Function estimates on the relationship between Student Performance and the key School Resources in Developing countries

Key School Resources

Number of estimate

Statistically Significant (%) Positive Negative Insignificant

Pupil -Teacher Ratios (PTR) 30 27 27 46

Teacher Education 63 56 3 41

Teacher Experience 46 35 4 61

Expenditure per Pupil 12 50 0 50

Source: Hanushek (1995)

Fuller (1986) reviewed 72 empirical studies of student achievement worldwide and reported on which individual elements of school quality were statistically significant in explaining pupil achievement at the 5% level. Those which were significantly related to achievement in at least half of the studies were assumed to hold a ‘consistent’ influence on achievement.

In contrast, the study by Fuller and Clark (1994), which reviewed around 100 studies on developing countries, found a strong relationship between a number of resource variables and student outcomes. Scheern (2004) found that availability of textbooks and supplementary reading material, teacher qualities, and student time on task was consistently related to student performance.

One explanation behind the stronger impact of school resources in developing countries lies in the difference in the distribution of resources and student performance across schools. The marginal impact of school resources on student outcomes declines with the level of resources. In the case of developed countries, schools generally have such high levels of resources that increasing resources will not have any substantial impact on student performance. Whereas, developing countries typically have much lower levels of school resources. Hence, it is not surprising that the impact of additional school resources is substantially higher in these countries.

75

The stronger influence of school resources in developing countries is due to the difference in resource allocation and student performance regardless of school location either rural or urban. By contrast, in developed countries irrespective of geographic area almost identical resources are received by schools. Therefore, the statistical analysis is likely to demonstrate a strong association between these variables in developing countries (Scheerns, 2004). The differences in student performance are due to the effects of input variables in any production process. In general, these studies demonstrate that the estimated relationship between student outcomes and school resource variables are highly inconsistent. Furthermore, the majority of education production function studies show no statistically significant relationship between school resources and student attainment, not even a negative relationship. This applies in developed and developing countries.

Overall, these results are startlingly consistent in finding no strong evidence that teacher pupil ratio, teacher education, or teacher experience have an expected positive effect on student achievement. While the evidence from developed and developing countries shows that school resources are not closely, consistently or even weakly related to student outcomes. According to the available evidence, one cannot be confident that hiring more educated teachers or having smaller size classes will improve student performance. Teacher experience appears only marginally stronger in its relationship.

4.1.3 The class size debate