1. ECLAC (2010a)
2. ECLAC/SEGIB (2010).
3. Gazzola and Didriksson (2008).
4. Since the beginning of this assessment, the countries participating in PISA include all OECD economies and a growing number of associate countries. As a result, from 2000 to 2009 the number of participants rose from 43 to 65 countries.
5. OECD (2010e).
6. In the reading test, Chile and Peru recorded the most improvement in the region during the first decade of the 20th century. In the mathematics test, Brazil and Mexico have improved since 2003, while the performance of other Latin American countries has remained the same. In the science test, results improved in three countries: Brazil, Chile and Colombia. Their improvement was the equivalent of one year of schooling, in part thanks to a decline in the proportion of students with low skill levels.
7. OECD (2010a).
8. OECD (2010i).
9. Duryea et al. (2007).
10. For the total PISA sample, 24% of male students have a low performance compared to 12% of female students. There is an average difference of 39 points between males and females among OEC D economies. In the group of Latin American countries, both the country with the best (Chile) and worst (Peru) outcomes show a difference between male and female students of 22 points. Colombia has the lowest difference between males and females of all the countries (9 points).
11. OECD (2010j).
12. The PISA test uses two basic measures of performance, one associated with test scores and one associated with equity in the distribution of scores within schools, between schools and across countries.
13. ECLAC (2010c).
14. ECLAC/IYO (2008) and ECLAC (2010c).
15. ECLAC (2010c).
16. ECLAC (2010c).
17. Marcel and Raczynski (2009).
18. ECLAC (2010c).
19. ECLAC (2010c).
20. Jakubowski (2010) and Petrow and Vegas (2009).
21. Pereyra (2008).
22. Psacharopoulos and Patrinos (2004).
23. World Bank (2008).
24. Persson and Tabellini (2000).
25. Faguet (2004).
26. Myerson (2006), Gradstein et al. (2004).
27. Bardhan (2002).
28. Galiani and Schargrodsky (2002).
29. Carnoy (1999) and Candia (2004)
30. See Vegas and Umansky (2007) on decentralisation experiences in Central America.
31. Di Gropello (1999).
32. Cortes (2010).
33. Rapalo (2003).Latin American Economic Outlook 2012 © OECD/ECLAC 2011
34. Rapalo (2003).
35. Galiani and Schargrodsky (2002); Avendaño and Nopo (forthcoming). One example of resource redistribution policies is the Preferential School Subsidy Law (SEP) in Chile, which provides subsidies for each student classified as a priority student. Thus, a school with more priority students can receive more resources. Another important element is that schools receiving this funding follow a school improvement plan. Another example took place in Mexico with the Quality Schools Programme (PEC) and the Full-Time Schools Programme (PETC), initiatives to improve the quality of teaching in disadvantaged schools and to increase their resources (OECD, 2010h).
36. Gazzola and Didriksson (2008).
37. For example, only a few countries stand out for number of publications and scientific citations on a world level (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico). (ECLAC/SEGIB, 2010)
38. ECLAC (2010b).
39. OECD (2009).
40. OECD (2010c, 2010g).
41. OECD (2010d).
42. Since 2006, the ENLACE test has measured the level of knowledge and skills of students defined in official programmes of study. This evaluation covers the areas of Spanish, mathematics and a rotatingsubject. Over 100 000 schools participate. See Campos-Vásquez and Romero (2010).
43. OECD (2010d).
44. OECD (2010d).
45. OECD (2010c, 2010h).
46. Mizala and Nopo (2011).
47. OECD (2010b).
48. OECD (2011).
Avendano, R. and H. Nopo (forthcoming), “How Successful were Decentralization Reforms in Latin America?Evidence from the PISA Survey”, Working Paper, OECD Development Centre.
Bardhan, P. (2002), “Decentralization of Governance and Development”, Journal of Economic Perspectives.Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 185-205.
Campos-Vásquez, R.M. and F.D. Romero Urbina (2010), “Desempeño educativo en México: la prueba ENLACE”.Documento de Trabajo, No. 19, Centro de Estudios Económicos, Colegio de México.
Candia, A. (2004), “Razones y estrategias de la descentralización educativa: un análisis comparado deArgentina y Chile”, Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, No. 34, January-April 2004, pp. 179-200.
Carnoy, M. (1999), Globalization and Educational Reform: What Planners Need to Know, Fundamentals ofEducational Planning, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), Paris.
Cortes, D. (2010), “Do More Decentralized Local Governments do Better? An Evaluation of the 2001Decentralization Reform in Colombia”, Working Paper No. 84, Facultad de Economía, Universidad del Rosario.
Di Gropell o, E. (1999), “Educational Decentralization Models in Latin America”, ECLAC Review, No. 68, August 1999, pp. 155-173.
Duryea , S., S. Gal iani, H. Nopo and C. Piras (2007), “The Educational Gender Gap in Latin America and the Caribbean”, RES Working Papers, No. 600, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbea n) (CEPAL) (2010a), Time for Equality: ClosingGaps, Opening Trails, LC/G.2432 (SES.33/3), ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.
ECLAC (CEPAL) (2010b), Science and Technology in the Latin American Pacific Basin: Opportunity forInnovation and Competition, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.
ECLAC (CEPAL) (2010c), Social Panorama of Latin America 2010, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.
ECLAC (CEPAL) (2010d), Monitoring of the Plan of Action eLAC2010: Advances and Challenges of theInformation Society in Latin America and the Caribbean, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.
ECLAC/IYO (Ibero-America n Youth Organisation) (2008), Youth and Social Cohesion in Ibero-America: A Modelin the Making, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.
ECLAC (CEPAL)/SEGIB (Sec retaría General Iberoamerica na) (2010), Espacios iberoamericanos. Universidad y empresa: vínculos entre universidad y empresas para el desarrollo tecnológico, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.
Faguet, J.P. (2004), “Does Decentralization Increase Government Responsiveness to Local Needs? Evidencefrom Bolivia”, Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 88, Issues 3-4, pp. 867-893.
Gal iani, S. and E. Schargrodsky (2002), “Evaluating the Impact of School Decentralization on EducationalQuality”, Economia, Vol. 2, No. 2, Spring 2002, pp. 275-314.
Gazzola , A.L. and A. Didriksson (eds.) (2008), Trends in Higher Education in the Latin America and the Caribbean, IESALC (International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean)-UNESCO, Caracas.
Gradstein, M., M. Justman and V. Meier (2004), The Political Economy of Education: Implications for Growth and Inequality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Katzman, R. (2010), “Impacto social de la incorporación de las nuevas tecnologías de información y comunicación en el sistema educativo”, Políticas Sociales, No. 166, October 2010, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.
Mizala , A. and H. Nopo (2011), “Teachers’ Salaries in Latin America. How Much Are They (Under or Over)Paid?”, mimeo.
Myerson, R. (2006), “Federalism and Incentives for Success of Democracy∫”, Quarterly Journal of PoliticalScience, Vol. 1, pp. 3-23.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-ope ration and Devel opment) (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and LearningEnvironments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010a), PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do: Student Performance in Reading,Mathematics and Science, Vol. 1, PISA, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010b), Pisa 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities andOutcomes, Vol. 2, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010c), Pisa 2009 Results: Learning to Learn: Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices, Vol. 3,OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010d), Pisa 2009 Results: Resources, Policies and Practices, Vol. 4, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010e), Pisa 2009 Results: Changes in Student Performance, Vol. 5, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010f), Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2010g), Economic Assessment of Colombia, OECD Development Centre, Paris.
OECD (2010h), Iberoamerica in PISA 2006. Regional Report, Santillana Educación, Paris.
OECD (2010i), Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2011a), Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the UnitedStates, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2011b), “The Impact of the 1999 Education Reform in Poland”, OECD Education Working Papers,No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Pereyra, Ana (2008), “La fragmentación de la oferta educativa en América Latina: la educación pública vs. laeducación privada”, Perfiles Educativos, Vol. 30, No. 120, Mexico.
Persson, T. and G. Tabell ini (2000), Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy, MIT Press, Cambridge,Mass.
Psac haropoulos, G. and H.A. Patrinos (2004), “Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update”, EducationEconomics, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 111-134.
Petrow, J. and E. Vegas (2008), Raising Student Learning in Latin America: The Challenge for the 21st Century,World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
Rápal o, R. (2003), “Los procesos de descentralización educativa en América Latina y lineamientos de propuesta para la descentralización educativa en Honduras”, Colección Cuadernos de Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, No. 13, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Tegucigalpa.
Vegas, E. and I. Umansky (2007), “Inside Decentralization: How Three Central American School-Based Management Reforms Affect Student Learning through Teacher Incentives”, World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 197-215
World Bank (2008), “Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development”, report, Commission on Growth and Development, World Bank, Washington, DC.