Learning Outcomes, School Quality and Equity:
What is Different about the Vietnamese System?
Caine Rolleston
Young Lives longitudinal survey of children, households & communities every 3 years since 2002
• 12,000 index children• Two cohorts now aged
13 and 19• Ethiopia, India, Peru,
Vietnam• 20 sentinel sites in each
country• Include comparable
learning assessments of maths and literacy
YOUNG LIVES HOUSEHOLD STUDY
• School surveys since 2010• Focus on learning & learning progress, school
and teacher effectiveness• Index children and their class peers • Total 3,284 pupils in Grade 5 in Vietnam, 176
classes in 91 school sites• Longitudinal test design reflect curricular
expectations at the beginning and the end of the school year
• School, class observations, teacher pedagogical content tests, attitude questionnaires
• Allows estimation of school quality
SCHOOL SURVEYS
GNI IS HIGHEST IN PERU AND VERY SIMILAR IN VIETNAM AND INDIA
19951996
19971998
19992000
20012002
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
PeruVietnamIndiaEthiopia
GNI per capita 1995-2010 ($ 2000, PPP)
HOUSEHOLD TEST DATA: AT AGE 5 COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT LEVELS ARE SIMILAR,
ESPECIALLY BETWEEN VIETNAM AND INDIA
Mean Score (%)
BY AGE 8 CHILDREN IN VIETNAM OUTPERFORM OTHER COUNTRIES IN MATHS. The POOREST IN VIETNAM
PERFORM BETTER THAN ALMOST ALL OTHERS
Mean (Household) Maths Test Scores at Age 8 (%)
BY AGE 15 THE GAP IN MATHS PERFORMANCE BETWEEN VIETNAM AND INDIA IS VERY LARGE
India Vietnam0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Site-level average maths score at age 14-15
020
4060
80M
edia
n M
aths
Sco
re R
3 %
0 20 40 60 80 100CDA-Q Score R2 %
Ethiopia PeruIndia Vietnam
WIDENING GAPS ARE DRIVEN BY DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING PROGRESS OVER TIME BETWEEN SYSTEMS:
AGE 5 TO 8
PROGRESS AGES 12 TO 15
WHILE PUPILS IN VIETNAM KEEP UP WITH THE CURRICULUM, IN INDIA THEY FALL PROGRESSIVELY BEHIND
Pupils’ abilities remain in-line with the curriculum in Vietnam but the curriculum in India is progressively ‘over-ambitious’
(pupils fail to progress according to expectations)
Indicator Vietnam India Mean class size
27.61 16.23
Mean years of teacher experience
17.47 7.71
Mean monthly teacher salary (USD/Month)
164
226
% of teachers with no formal teacher training qualification
0% 16.50%
Teacher absenteeism
2.34 days per year 35.12% pupils said ‘ my class teacher often does not come to school’
All children have access to maths textbooks
96.16% 60.84%
Teacher always checks/marks maths homework
41.28% 18.06%
VIETNAM AND INDIA: SCHOOL-SYSTEM QUALITY INDICATORS (FROM SCHOOL SURVEYS)
THE REASON FOR BETTER PERFORMANCE OVERALL IN VIETNAM LIES PARTLY IN LOWER LEVELS OF
INEQUALITYHIGH AVERAGE PERFORMANANCE LINKED TO LOW
DISPERSION
TEST SCORES VARY BETWEEN SCHOOLS IN PERU AND VIETNAM BUT ARE LESS DISPERSED IN
VIETNAM
05
10
15
20
Num
ber
of
Schoo
ls
300 400 500 600 700Mean Maths Score
School Mean Maths Scores, Vietnam
05
10
15
20
Num
ber
of
Schoo
ls
300 400 500 600 700Mean Maths Score
School Mean Maths Scores, Peru
School test scores scaled to mean 500 and standard deviation 100
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND HOME BACKGROUND IS STRONGER IN PERU
THAN VIETNAM4
00
450
500
550
600
Ma
ths
Sco
re
0 .25 .5 .75 1Household Wealth Index
95% CI VietnamPeru
Maths Performance By Wealth Index
Maths Vietnamese
First Test Second Test Gain First Test Second Test Gain
Kinh 508.74 549.77 41.03 511.41 513.32 1.90
Ethnic Minority
438.55 503.66 65.12 419.76 481.31 61.55
Difference 70.19*** 46.11*** 24.08*** 91.65*** 32.01*** 59.65***
Total 500.00 544.03 44.03 500.00 509.33 9.33
IN VIETNAM, ETHNIC MINORITY PUPILS PERFORM LESS WELL THAN KINH, BUT NO EVIDENCE THAT THE GAP WIDENS DUE TO SCHOOLING IN G5
Vietnamese Mathematics
There are 2 main ways through which school quality may have differential impacts on pupils’ attainments.
Differential school effectiveness along SES
DIFFERENT GROUPS OF CHILDREN MAY BENEFIT FROM SCHOOL QUALITY DIFFERENTLY
BETWEEN SCHOOLS
Are poorer children accessing lower quality schools?
(selection into schools)
WITHIN SCHOOLS
Are poorer children benefiting less from school quality than
their more advantaged counterparts?
UNEQUAL ACCESS: PRIVATE SCHOOL ATTENANCE IS ACCELERATING IN RURAL INDIA WITH A
WIDENING GENDER GAP
-100
-50
050
100
Scho
ol V
alue
-Add
ed (9
0% C
I)
0 10 20 30 40 50School Value-Added Rank
Which Schools Add More Value in G5?
Not particularly more advantaged pupils
Slightly better physical resources
Not better teacher subject knowledge
More teachers with degrees
More positive teacher attitudes e.g.
“The influence of a student’s home experience can be overcome by good teaching”
Teachers more often evaluated
School Value-Added: Learning progress attributable to schools after removing prior attainment and background effects
SOME SCHOOLS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS IN VIETNAM, BUT THIS IS NOT STRONGLY LINKED TO PUPILS’
BACKGROUNDS
CHILDREN’S HOME BACKGROUNDS EXPLAIN MORE OF THE VARIANCE IN ATTAINMENT IN INDIA AND
PERU THAN IN VIETNAMControlling for pre-school scores, children’s home backgrounds (at age 5) explain much more of the variation in test scores (at age 11) in Peru than in Vietnam or India
In maths, backgrounds account for a large proportion of the variance in Peru and much less in Vietnam
Systems where background effects are large are arguably more inequitable - ‘reproducing’ home advantage/disadvantage Vietnam India Peru
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Mathematics Language
Prop
ortio
n of
Var
ianc
e in
Tes
t Sco
res E
xpla
ined
SCHOOLS EXPLAIN MORE OF THE VARIANCE IN ATTAINMENT IN INDIA AND PERU COMPARED WITH VIETNAM
• ‘School fixed effects’ capture school-level factors (school quality), controlling for pupil backgrounds, pre-school test scores
• School quality in India and Peru accounts for more of the variance in test scores than in Vietnam
• School systems in Peru and India more heterogeneous, school a child attends appears to matter more than in Vietnam
Vietnam India Peru0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Mathematics Language
Prop
ortio
n of
Var
ianc
e in
Tes
t Sco
res E
xpla
ined
Vietnam Peru-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-0.18
0.41*
Proportion of 1 SD of maths test score distribution
Who benefits from an increase in school quality? – compare effect on richest 40% to poorest 60% (separate FE)
In Vietnam, schools are equally effective in teaching Maths to children irrespectively of their background.
In Peru, by contrast, schools significantly less effective at teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds
WITHIN THE SAME SCHOOL, DISADVANTAGED PUPILS MAKE LESS PROGRESS IN PERU, BUT NOT
IN VIETNAM
POSITIVES• Almost all schools have basic facilities -
electricity, toilets, text books, basic learning materials etc.
• Overall differences across sites on basic quality indicators are small
• Pupils from disadvantaged sites/backgrounds make good progress on the curriculum in G5
• Disadvantaged pupils attend schools with lower levels of some assets but are often in smaller classes
• The relationship between school quality and pupils’ backgrounds is fairly weak
• Primary schooling in Vietnam is relatively equitable by comparison
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10400
450
500
550
600
650
Teacher Reported Test Score
Youn
g Li
ves
Test
Sco
reTEACHERS IN VIETNAM KNOW WHAT PUPILS
KNOW (AND NEED TO KNOW)
CAVEATS• Large differences in home background advantage between
sites • Large differences in achievement between the most (urban
Da Nang) and least advantaged sites (mountainous Lao Cai)• Notable differences in test score by ethnicity (Kinh/minority)• Larger differences on more sophisticated school resources
(i.e. library, internet, computers), particularly between Da Nang and the other sites
• Pupils in more advantaged sites receive more periods of teaching per week
• Effects of extra classes etc. difficult to account for• Gaps at entry to Grade 5 require further efforts to equalise
learning very early on.
DROP-OUT BETWEEN AGES12 AND 15 IS HIGHEST IN VIETNAM
• High drop-out at completion of junior secondary stage (age 14)
• Higher among boys• May suggest PISA results are an overestimate
39%
PUPILS IN VIETNAM PERFORM VERY WELL ON EQUATIONS AND ALGEBRA INCLUDING USING COMPLEX FRACTIONS …BUT POORLY ON SIMPLER? PROBLEM SOLVING QUESTIONS (SUGGESTING ROTE LEARNING)
33%
Equity-oriented centralised public school system• Less evidence that disadvantaged pupils attend lower
quality schools• Less evidence that schools are less effective for
disadvantaged pupilsHigh-performance for the majority linked to equity orientation• Emphasis on ‘fundamental’ or minimum school quality
levels (especially in disadvantaged areas) • Common curricula & text books in use matched closely
to pupils’ learning levels• Commitment to ‘mastery’ by all pupils - use of regular
assessment by teachers• Teacher knowledge (YL curriculum tests) is similar
between more and less disadvantaged areas, absenteeism is low across almost all schools
WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE VIETNAMESE SYSTEM?