Education Equity Essay

The constitution of the coupled Nations developmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was adopted by 20 countries at the London Conference in November 1945 and entered into effect on 4 November 1946. The Organization currently has 191 Member States and six Associate Members.The main objective of UNESCO is to fall in to peace and security in the world by promoting collaboration among nations done commandment, science, culture and communication in order to foster universal respect for justice, the territorial dominion of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms that be affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations.To fulfil its mandate, UNESCO performs five principal functions 1) prospective studies on schooling, science, culture and communication for tomorrows world 2) the advancement, transfer and sharing of knowledge through research, training and teaching activitie s 3) standard-setting actions for the preparation and adoption of internal instruments and statutory recommendations 4) expertise through technical co-operation to Member States for their development policies and projects and 5) the exchange of specialized information.UNESCO is headquartered in Paris, France. UNESCO Institute for Statistics The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) is the statistical office of UNESCO and is the UN depository for global statistics in the fields of reading, science and technology, culture and communication. UIS was established in 1999. It was created to improve UNESCOs statistical programme and to develop and deliver the timely, accurate and insurance-relevant statistics needed in straightaways increasingly complex and rapidly changing social, political and economic environments.UIS is based in Montreal, Canada. American Institutes for Research (AIR) Since its founding in 1946 as an independent, non-profit and non-partisan organization, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) has conducted more than 3,500 projects providing basic and use research, technical stay and management services to government agencies, non-profit organizations and private companies. AIRs work in fostering spans both the domestic and international areas, with the latter including extensive work in comparative bringing up and international development.1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007-3835 United States www. air. org. UNESCO Institute for Statistics P. O. Box 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7 Canada Tel (1 514) 343-6880 Fax (1 514) 343-5740 Email creationationsuis. unesco. org http//www. uis. unesco. org ISBN 92-9189-041-3 UNESCO-UIS 2007 Ref UIS/WP/06-03 Cover design JCNicholls Design Printed by ICAO Executive summary.The right to education has been recognised by the international community for the last half century and has led to increasing interest in the righteousness of countries education systems. How ever, the term rectitude is subject to a variety of interpretations. Most would agree that education systems that are equitable provide high-quality education to all children, regardless of their background or where they live. But from there, opinions diverge more or less what aspect of education should be distributed equitably to whom and about what levels of disparity are equitable or inequitable.Recognising the lack of a common language for discussing the come to the fore of justice in education, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) undertook a study to bring together some of the diverse barbeles to loveliness and to provide a more systematic approach to conceptualising and measuring the justness of countries education systems. This study comes at an important time for policymakers, particularly in developing countries that are striving to attain the goal of Education for All.With appropriate tools in hand, policymakers will be in a better position to assess the virt ue of their education systems and to develop and implement policies and programmes to address the about critical related issues. This report presents the results of the study in three components. First, it provides a context for understanding the current interest in educational equity through a review of the evolution of international concerns about equity and previous efforts to define and judge equity more systematically.Second, it presents a framework for measuring educational equity, along with methods for comparing the equity of countries education systems using a set of standard statistical measures. Finally, it demonstrates the application of the framework in 16 of the largest, most-populous countries around the world. These take three countries in Africa (Egypt, Nigeria and reciprocal ohm Africa), five in Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan), five in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru), along with Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States.The empirical abstract conducted in this report centers on three specific objects of equity. One is a measure of access ( register ratios) and two are measures of resources allocated to education ( use of goods and services per disciple and student-teacher ratios). The framework is applied using two main principles of equity horizontal equity and equal educational fortune. horizontal equity examines disparities in access to education and resources for education inside countries, using selected measures of dispersion that reflect different concerns of education policy.Equal educational opportunity examines the relationship amongst wealthiness and the three objects of equity, as well as urban/rural differences in the provision of access to education and educational resources. iii educational Equity and in the earth eye(predicate) Policy In presenting the application of the equity framework, geographic regions within countries are employ as the unit of abridgment. In federal countries, these units are generally states, provinces and other political jurisdictions with authority over education in nonfederal countries, the units are usually the first administrative entity below the national level.The abridgment of horizontal equity focuses on disparities across these units in access and resources the analysis of equal educational opportunity relates regions wealth (measured as regional product per capita) and population density (a proxy for urban/rural location) with the objects of equity. Coefficients of correlation are used to measure the direction and size of these relationships. We recognise that regional disparities are not the primal concern of policymakers in all countries and that disparities based on gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status may be more significant than geographic disparities.We, therefore, suggest that the analyses presented in the report should not be used as the sole substructure for judging wh ether a countrys education system is equitable or inequitable other analyses are needed to fully inform this issue. However, it is similarly important to note that geographic disparities are of great importance in many countries, particularly large federal countries, and that there is a long customs of research on this sack upic in both developing and developed countries. In the former, the focus has frequently been on access to education, with urban/rural disparities at the core of policy debates.In the latter, the focus has historically been on disparities in resources provided for public education in recent years, the emphasis has shifted to education outcomes, particularly learner achievement. We view the empirical work presented in this report as an extension of that stream of research. Selected findings from the study This study attempted to compare countries on key aspects of educational policy and to assess the coitus equity of their education systems, based on differen ces in access to education and the provision of educational resources in major geographic divisions.Before presenting some of the key findings, a few caveats are in order. First, the findings presented represent a single but important dimension of equity in education. Second, even within the analyses presented here, there is not complete consistency in countries rankings on all access and resource measures. Countries may rank highly on one measure of educational resources and not so well on another. Third, countries comparative rankings on educational equity may depend on the concourse of countries used in the comparisons.A different mix of countries could produce different determinations in our equity assessment. Finally, disparities within countries may often result from in be givened acts of policy (e. g. the provision of greater resources in poorer areas to compensate for their lack) that are producing the desired results. It is therefore important not to over-interpret the fin dings regarding geographical disparities and to conclude categorically that one countrys education system is more equitable than anothers. iv Educational Equity and Public Policy. level equity regional disparities tabularize A provides an overview of countries relative standing on horizontal equity, based on the three objects of equity examined in this study record ratios, expenditure per educatee and scholar-teacher ratios. Countries that fall at the fall of the rankings tend to have comparatively small disparities across regions countries in the infiltrate tend to have relatively large disparities while countries in the position tend to have moderate disparities relative to other countries.Based on these findings, we find the following Access to education Enrolment ratios Among the nine countries reporting enrolment ratios for both uncomplicated and inessential education, only Mexico has relatively small disparities at both education levels. Egypt and the Russian Feder ation have moderate disparities in access to indigenous and secondary education, while India and Brazil tend to have large regional disparities. Argentina and Peru have relatively small regional disparities in access to primary education and moderate disparities in secondary education, while the reverse is the case in South Africa.Indonesia has moderate disparities in access to primary education and relatively large disparities at the secondary level. Among countries only reporting primary enrolment ratios, disparities are relatively small in China and relatively large in Bangladesh and Pakistan. At the secondary level, disparities in enrolment ratios are relatively small in Canada and the United States. Educational resources Expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios Canada, Peru, South Africa and the United States prove the smallest interregional disparities in expenditure per pupil for primary and secondary education.Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the Russian Federation f all in the middle set about, while China, Egypt and India have the largest disparities in expenditure per pupil across their regions. Overall, there is a strong correspondence mingled with countries rankings on regional disparities in expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary education. Canada, Peru, South Africa and the United States are at or near the top of the rankings on both measures, Brazil and the Russian Federation are in the middle, with Egypt and India at the poop of the rankings. -v-.Educational Equity and Public Policy Disparities in pupil-teacher ratios in primary education are smallest in Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Peru in the moderate range in Bangladesh, China, Ecuador and the United States and largest in Egypt, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. Disparities in pupil-teacher ratios at the secondary level show some similarities and some differences with primary education disparities are smallest in China, Indonesia, Mexico a nd Peru in the moderate range in Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, Nigeria and the United States and largest in Argentina, India and Pakistan. Table A. orbit placements on horizontal equity analyses of enrolment ratios, expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios primary and secondary expenditure per pupil middle * middle top stinker * underside bottom * middle * * top middle top top Primary and secondary pupilteacher ratio bottom * middle top middle middle bottom bottom middle top bottom middle top middle top top Country Argentina Bangladesh Brazil Canada China Ecuador Egypt India Indonesia Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Peru Russian Federation South Africa United States * Not available. Primary enrolment ratio top bottom bottom * top * middle bottom middle top * bottom top middle middle *.Secondary enrolment ratio middle * bottom top * * middle bottom bottom top * * middle middle top top Primary pupilteacher ratio top middle top * middle middle bottom bottom top top bottom bottom top * * mi ddle Secondary pupilteacher ratio bottom * middle * top middle middle bottom top top middle bottom top * * middle vi Educational Equity and Public Policy Equal educational opportunity Table B provides a summary of findings from the analysis of educational opportunity using the relationship between regional wealth and regional enrolment ratios, expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios.In the table, a dash (-) signifies that countries tend to have lower enrolment ratios, lower expenditure per pupil or lower pupil-teacher ratios in wealthier regions and a overconfident sign (+) signifies that countries tend to have higher enrolment ratios, higher expenditure per pupil or higher pupilteacher ratios in wealthier regions. An asterisk (*) is used in instances where a country does not have a consistent relationship between regional wealth and a given measure. Where the relationships are strongly positive or negative (greater than +0. 50 or less than -0.50), there are no additions t o the designated signs. However, parentheses are used to indicate relationships that are statistically weak (between -0. 50 and -0. 25 or between 0. 25 and 0. 50). Access to education Enrolment ratios Egypt, Mexico and Peru perform most poorly on this dimension of equity, with moderate to strong positive relationships between regional wealth and enrolments ratios in both primary and secondary education. In Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, Indonesia, South Africa and the United States, wealthier regions also tend to have higher enrolment ratios in secondary education.Poorer regions tend to have higher enrolment ratios in primary education in four countries Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa. However, India is the only country where the relationship is strong. Educational resources Expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios Wealthy regions tend to provide greater expenditure per pupil for primary and secondary education in the 10 countries with available data. The relat ionships are strong in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, South Africa and the United States, and moderate in Egypt, Mexico, Peru and the Russian Federation.Higher expenditure results in lower primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios in wealthier regions in seven of these countries Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, India and Peru. Wealthier regions also tend to have lower pupil-teacher ratios in primary education in Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India and Peru. The same pattern is found in secondary education in these six countries, as well as in Mexico. vii Educational Equity and Public Policy Table B.Findings from the analysis of equal educational opportunity The relationship between regional wealth and regional enrolment ratios, expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios Primary and secondary expenditure per pupil + + + + (+) * n/a (+) n/a (+) (+) + + Primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratio (-) (-) (-) (-) * * * * * * Country Argentina Brazil Canada China E gypt India Indonesia Mexico Nigeria Peru Russian Federation South Africa United States Primary enrolment ratio (-) n/a (+) (+) * (+) n/a (+) * (-) n/a Secondary enrolment ratio + + + n/a (+) (+) (+) (+) n/a + * (+) +.Primary pupilteacher ratio (-) n/a (-) (-) (-) * (+) * (-) n/a n/a * Secondary pupilteacher ratio (-) (-) n/a (-) (-) (-) * (-) * (-) n/a n/a * n/a Data not available. * Not a statistically significant relationship (correlation between -0. 25 and +0. 25). viii Educational Equity and Public Policy Table of contents Page Executive summary iii Acknowledgements .13 1. 2. Introduction .. 15 Contextualising and defining educational equity 17 I. Efforts to support educational rights and equity.. 17 A. The United Nations .. 17 B. Other international efforts.. 18 C. Efforts to measure equity.. 19 II. Developing a framework to measure equity in education .. 20 The equity framework . 22 I. Targets of equity concerns 22 II. Objects 22 A. Access and progression.23 B. Resources . 23 C. Results 23 III. Equity principles . 24 A. Horizontal equity 24 B. Vertical equity . 24 C.Equal educational opportunity (EEO) .. 25 IV. Measuring equity 26 A. Measures of horizontal equity . 26 1. Range ratio .. 27 2. McLoone Index/adjusted McLoone Index . 27 3. Coefficient of variation 28 4.Gini coefficient 28 B. Measures of vertical equity .. 30 C. Measures of equal educational opportunity.. 30 V. Overview 31 Application of the equity framework enrolment ratios 32 I. Introduction to the analysis32 A. Countries selected for analysis .. 32 B. Presentation of the analyses 36 II. Enrolment ratios . 37 A. Horizontal equity analysis . 38 1. Primary education. 38 2.Secondary education .. 40 B. Equal educational opportunity. 43 1. regional wealth and enrolment ratios. 43 2. Regional population density and enrolment ratios 44 C. Horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity 45 3. 4. -9- Educational Equity and Public Policy 5. Application of the equity framework Expendi ture per pupil .47 I. Horizontal equity analysis.. 47 A. Composite rankings . 49 B. Consistency of rankings on equity measures.. 50 II. Equal educational opportunity . 51 A. Regional wealth and expenditure per pupil .. 51 B. Regional population density and expenditure per pupil..52 III. Horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity 53 IV. Changes in horizontal equity 54 V. Changes in equal educational opportunity 56 A. Regional wealth and expenditure per pupil .. 56 B. Regional population density and expenditure per pupil.. 57 Application of the equity framework Pupil-teacher ratios . 58 I.Horizontal equity analysis.. 58 A. Primary education . 60 1. Composite rankings . 61 2. Consistency of rankings on equity measures . 62 B. Secondary education .. 63 1. Composite rankings .63 2. Consistency of rankings on equity measures . 65 C. Combined primary and secondary education.. 66 1. Composite rankings . 67 2. Consistency of rankings on equity measures . 68 D. Consistency of rank ings on horizontal equity in primary, secondary and feature primary and secondary education .. 69 II. Equal educational opportunity .70 A. Regional wealth and pupil-teacher ratios .. 70 B. Regional population density and pupil-teacher ratios.. 72 III. Horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity 73 A. Primary education . 73 B. Secondary education .. 74 C. Combined primary and secondary education.. 75 D.Summary of findings 76 IV. Changes in horizontal equity 78 A. Primary education . 78 B. Secondary education .. 80 C. Primary and secondary education. 81 D. Summary of findings 82 V. Changes in equal educational opportunity 84 A. Regional wealth and pupil-teacher ratios .. 84 B. Regional population density and pupil-teacher ratios.. 85 Sources, methods and technical notes .. 87 References. 105 Glossary..113 Equity-related education laws, policies and research in core countries.. 118 10 6. Appendix 1. Appendix 2. Appendix 3. Appendix 4. Educational Equity and Public Polic y Tables Page 3. 1 3. 2 3. 3 4. 1 4. 2 4. 3 4. 4 4. 5 4. 6 4. 7 4. 8 4. 9 5. 1 5. 2 5. 3 5. 4 5. 5 5. 6 5. 7 6. 1 6. 2 6. 3 6. 4 6. 5 6. 6 6. 7 6. 8 6. 9 6. 10 6. 11 6. 12 6. 13 6. 14 6. 15 6. 16 6. 17 6. 18 Types of objects ..22 Illustration of Gini coefficient distribution of pupil-teacher ratios for country A 29 Illustration of Gini coefficient distribution of pupil-teacher ratios for country B 30 Type of government, name of regions and procedure of regions in countries.. 33 Population and area of countries 33 Gross product per capita and population density35 field of study primary enrolment ratios .. 38 Horizontal equity measures of primary enrolment ratios. 39 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of primary enrolment ratios .. 39 National secondary enrolment ratios. 41 Horizontal equity measures of secondary enrolment ratios ..41 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of secondary enrolment ratios. 42 National public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil .. 48 Horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil. 48 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil . 49 Change in national average public primary and secondary expenditure per pupil 55 Horizontal equity measures of public primary and secondary expenditure per pupil, 1995 and 2002 . 55 correlation coefficient between GRP per capita and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil, 1995 and 2002.. 56 Correlation between regional population density and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil, 1995 and 2002..57 National public primary pupil-teacher ratios .. 59 National public secondary pupil-teacher ratios 59 Horizontal equity measures of public primary pupil-teacher ratios 60 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public primary pupil-teacher ratios .. 60 Horizontal equity measures of public secondary pupil-teacher ratios.. 63 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public secondary pupil-teacher ratios 63 Horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios. 66 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios . 66 Correlation between GRP per capita and public pupil-teacher ratios ..71 Correlation between regional population density and public pupil-teacher ratios.. 72 Change in national average public primary pupil-teacher ratios . 79 Horizontal equity measures of public primary pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002 . 79 Change in national average public secondary pupil-teacher ratios .. 80 Horizontal equity measures of public secondary pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002 ..81 Change in national average public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios . 81 Horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002.. 82 Correlation between GRP per cap ita and public pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002 84 Correlation between regional population density and public pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002 .86 11 Figures Page 3. 1 3. 2 3. 3 3. 4 4. 1 4. 2 4. 3 4. 4 4. 5 5. 1 5. 2 5. 3 5. 4 5. 5 6. 1 6. 2 6. 3 6. 4 6. 5 6. 6 6. 7 6. 8 6. 9 6. 10 6. 11 6. 12 6. 13 6. 14 Objects and targets of equity 23 interpret horizontal equity measures .. 27 Illustration of the Gini coefficient .29 Overview of the equity framework.. 31 Primary enrolment ratio ranking orders on horizontal equity measures . 40 Secondary enrolment ratio ranking orders on horizontal equity measures 42 Correlation between GRP per capita and primary and secondary enrolment ratios 43 Correlation between population density and primary and secondary enrolment ratios ..44 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures of enrolment ratios in primary (P) and secondary (S) education 45 Average rankings on horizontal equity measures of public c ombined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil . 50 Public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ranking orders on horizontal equity measures .51 Correlation between GRP per capita and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil . 52 Correlation between regional population density and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil . 53 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures of expenditure per pupil in public combined primary and secondary education.