Inter-country comparisons of volumes and prices: non-market education services Alain Gallais,...
17
Inter-country comparisons of volumes and prices: non-market education services Alain Gallais, OECD/STD/NAFS Alwyn Pritchard, ONS/UKCeMGA Workshop on Measurement of Non-market Output in education and health, London, October 3-5, 2006
-
Upload
sharlene-warner -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Inter-country comparisons of volumes and prices: non-market education services Alain Gallais,...
Inter-country comparisons of volumes and prices: non-market
education services
Alain Gallais, OECD/STD/NAFS
Alwyn Pritchard, ONS/UKCeMGA
Workshop on Measurement of Non-market Output in education and health, London, October 3-5, 2006
Aim of presentation
• Recap on how recent national accounts principles measure growth of volume of public services produced in each country
• Propose way in which these principles might be applied to compare levels of production between countries, in particular, per student, per pupil
Basis of education volume index
• Number of pupils• Quality of education provided• Auxiliary services• Transferred knowledge = f (no. of enrolled pupils, incremental contribution
to level of skills and knowledge)• Each level of education weighted by its cost• Pupil year of secondary education adds more to
GDP than pupil year of primary
Types of comparisons
Time series • For each country, measures year on year growth• Common methodological framework
Cross section • Compares levels between countries in same year
Primary spending per student, 2002
Country Spending*
United Kingdom 5062
France 4790
Ireland 3837
Sweden 6765
Korea 3181
Finland 4434
USA 8049* Converted to US$ at purchasing power parities (private consumption). Source: OECD
Examples of comparisons between countries
• Total volume of education, healthcare etc provided
• Volume produced per head of population
• Unit cost of production
• Requires leadership from international organisations
Comparing spending and possible volume measures, per primary student
Country Spending
United Kingdom 63
France 60
Ireland 48
Sweden 84
Korea 40
Finland 55
USA 100
USA = 100
Comparing spending and possible volume measures, per primary student
Country Spending Equal quality
United Kingdom 63 100
France 60 100
Ireland 48 100
Sweden 84 100
Korea 40 100
Finland 55 100
USA 100 100USA = 100
Comparing spending and possible volume measures, per primary student
Country Spending Equal quality
Test results
United Kingdom 63 100 110
France 60 100 106
Ireland 48 100 104
Sweden 84 100 105
Korea 40 100 112
Finland 55 100 113
USA 100 100 100
USA = 100
How valid is this approach?
• Arbitrary? UK = 110; why not 120?
• OECD standardise on mean of 500, s.d. of 100
• 1standard deviation 20% increase in score
• Research: 20% increase in score 20% higher earnings in later life
Correction for economic and socio-cultural differences between countriesCountry PISA 2003
scorePISA 2003 corrected score
Finland 544 536
France 511 516
Ireland 503 506
Korea 542 547
Norway 495 469
USA 483 470
Sweden 509 499
Time-lag between output and outcome: lower secondary grades
Grade \ year of outcome 2000 2001 2002 2003
9th grade
14-15 year old
8th grade
13-14 year old
7th grade
12-13 year old
6th grade
11-12 year old
PISA 2003
Year of teaching : 2000
Time-lag between output and outcome: lower secondary grades
Grade \ year of outcome 2000 2001 2002 2003
9th grade
14-15 year old
PISA 2000
8th grade
13-14 year old
7th grade
12-13 year old
6th grade
11-12 year old
PISA 2003
Year of teaching : 2000
Time-lag between output and outcome: lower secondary grades
Grade \ year of outcome 2000 2001 2002 2003
9th grade
14-15 year old
PISA 2000
8th grade
13-14 year old
7th grade
12-13 year old
1/3 PISA 2000
+ 2/3 PISA 2003
6th grade
11-12 year old
PISA 2003
Year of teaching : 2000
Time-lag between output and outcome: lower secondary grades
Grade \ year of outcome 2000 2001 2002 2003
9th grade
14-15 year old
PISA 2000
8th grade
13-14 year old
2/3 PISA 2000
+ 1/3 PISA 2003
7th grade
12-13 year old
1/3 PISA 2000
+ 2/3 PISA 2003
6th grade
11-12 year old
PISA 2003
Year of teaching : 2000
Time-lag output to outcome
Years of teaching
lower secondary
(hypothesis of 4 years)
Primary
(hypothesis of 5 years)
2000 1/2 PISA 2000
+ 1/2 PISA 2003
1/5 PISA 2003
+ 3/5 PISA 2006
+ 1/5 PISA 2009
2001 1/4 PISA 2000
+ 2/3 PISA 2003
+ 1/12 PISA 2006
1/15 PISA 2003
+ 8/15 PISA 2006
+ 6/15 PISA 2009
2002 1/12 PISA 2000
+ 2/3 PISA 2003
+ 1/4 PISA 2006
6/15 PISA 2006
+ 8/15 PISA 2009
+ 1/15 PISA 2012
2003 1/2 PISA 2003
+ 1/2 PISA 2006
1/5 PISA 2006
+ 3/5 PISA 2009
+ 1/5 PISA 2012
Conclusions, issues
• Much interest in public services and in comparisons between countries
• But this is about method, not results
• Do we stand to gain from using this approach?
