Summary of Presentations and Discussions

The second European Symposium on Economics of Education, organized by the European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) on behalf of the European Commission, took place in Brussels on November 15/16th, 2005. Its general theme was, "Efficiency and Equity of European Education and Training Systems". At the Symposium, representatives from education ministries of all EU Member States and from four Directorate-Generals of the European Commission met with researchers and EENEE network members to present latest scientific results and policy measures and to open a discussion on how to achieve both efficiency and equity in European education systems. In order to enhance the interaction between researchers and policy-makers, the programme alternated presentations from both groups. Each presentation from a researcher was followed by a short discussion by a policy-maker (and vice-versa) and concluded by a broader debate.

The meeting was opened by Nikolaus van der Pas, Director General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) of the European Commission, who underlined the importance of the symposium as a forum to disseminate the latest research outcomes and to promote discussions between policy-makers and researchers. Van der Pas also stressed the importance of the economics of education as a field of research in order to make a case for investments in education to achieve higher productivity, growth of employment, social cohesion, support of democratic structures and reduction of crime. [Speech given by Nikolaus van der Pas]

Ludger Wößmann, who coordinates the EENEE network from the Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, raised additional welcoming words to the audience. He shortly outlined the tasks performed by the EENEE network as a think tank for the European Commission such as answering questions related to economics of education on an ad hoc basis, setting up and maintaining a website and organizing symposia on the economics of education. Wößmann expressed his hopes that the form of this year's meeting - alternated presentations from policy-makers and researchers, each time commented upon by the other group - would encourage discussion even more.

The first session was chaired by Jan Host Schmidt, Director of the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), and dealt with "Institutional Reforms to Improve Performance and Equality of Treatment".

In his presentation on "Evaluations of Educational Interventions", Steve Machin from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics gave an overview of methods that can be used to evaluate policy initiatives in education. He raised awareness of the general problems connected with evaluations of policy initiatives and how they can or cannot be addressed by the presented measures. Using the Literacy Hour and the Education Maintenance Allowances as two examples from the UK, he explained how these initiatives came about and how they were evaluated.
Rutger Kramer, policy advisor to the Ministry of Education in the Netherlands, responded to Machin's presentation by commenting on the situation in his own country, where evidence-based policy research does not yet play an important role. He pointed out that in order to make evidence-based policy research, the state of the art tool in improving education systems, all parties involved - researchers, policy-makers and teachers - needed to comply to rules on how to successfully interact with each other. [Response of Rutger Kramer]

The next presentation on "PISA Results: The Absence of an Automatic Efficiency-Equity Trade-off" was given by Arvo Jäppinen, Director General of the Ministry of Education in Finland. Jäppinen presented his view on how the educational system in Finland was able to score so well in PISA both in terms of equity and efficiency. As factors responsible for the success he identified the high quality of the teacher education in Finland, the 9-year comprehensive schooling, the balance between steering and freedom in the national core curriculum together with responsibility at the local level, the large autonomy for schools and teachers and the reliable monitoring and evaluation system in place.
In his response, Torberg Falch from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology supported the view that high teacher quality and the institutional arrangements in Finland are probably the most important factors for the success of the Finish education system. [Response of Torberg Falch]

The third presentation was given by Daniel Münich from CERGE-EI and focused on "The Role of Choice and Accountability for the Efficiency and Equity of Schooling in Countries in Transition". Münich explained how in the case of the Czech Republic the three-track schooling system together with a gap in the supply of higher secondary schooling leads to a mismatch of pupils and schools. Admission to secondary schooling is regulated by a scheme that seems to promote an increase in both inequality and inefficiency and bias the information about the demand for schooling.
Jerzy Wisniewski, Director of the Ministry of Education in Poland, painted a complementary picture of the situation in his own country. When 15-year-old students in Poland were tested in PISA 2000, a relatively high variance in performance between schools was revealed. One reason for this was that back then, pupils at the age of 15 were in their first year of secondary schooling and were already sorted to different types of schools. In PISA 2003, after the duration of comprehensive schooling was increased from 8 to 9 years, 15-year-old students were not yet sorted into different secondary tracks. As an effect, from PISA 2000 to PISA 2003 the variation of performance between schools decreased while the variation within schools increased. [Response of Jerzy Wisniewski]

The first day of the symposium ended with a general discussion on the issues that had been addressed during the meeting, chaired by David Coyne, Director at DG EAC. David-Pascal Dion from DG EAC opened the discussion by giving a short introduction on "Policy Practices to Improve Performance and Equality of Treatment". He identified three possible measures to increase equity and efficiency: structural changes such as administrative changes and furthering autonomy and accountability; targeted reforms that would be especially tailored to the needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and process organisation, where he pointed at the risks of early tracking and of cream skimming but also at the chances due to increased choice.
The subsequent discussion centred on the issues of livelong learning, diversity in learning needs and how this should be accounted for, private provision of education and its effect on average performance, the effect of tracking on inequality and the effect of central exams on overall performance. During the discussion, Ludger Wößmann point towards recent research that showed that tracking does not seem to improve overall performance and is especially bad for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. [Follow this link for two recent research papers that address these issues.]

On the second day of the symposium, Aviana-Maria Bulgarelli, Director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP), opened as a chair the second session which dealt with "Incentives to Enhance Quality and Equality of Outcomes".

The first talk was given by Victor Lavy from Hebrew University on "Evaluating Teacher Performance Incentives while Enhancing Equity". Lavy pointed out that there is relatively little evidence on the effect of teachers' incentives but also that the experimental evidence that had been established so far - especially in Israel - was encouraging. However, what exactly the features of a well-designed incentive system are remains still an open question. In view of this, Lavy invited policy-makers to be more open to the idea of conducting experiments to close this gap.
Annelie Strååth from the Swedish Ministry of Education, Research and Culture responded to this presentation by giving a summary of the experiences made in Sweden when introducing performance based teacher pay. The reform that initially met with strong resistance was finally supported by teacher unions because it was linked to an increase in teacher salaries by 23% and also because of the perceived need to improve the status of teachers in the Swedish society. Although there are still some problems e.g. with respect to the criteria used to evaluate teacher performance, the reform is thought to be a great success. [Response of Annelie Strååth]

The following presentation by Bernadette Meurice, Inspectrice cantonale maternell for the Belgium French speaking community, centred on "Efficiency and Equity of Early Interventions: The Case of École Maternelle". Meurice explained that École Maternelle in Belgium was seen as a means to aim at equality of educational opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. She gave an overview of the historical evolvement and presented the pedagogical innovations made in recent years to explicitly advance children from less advantaged families.
Respondent Hessel Oosterbeek from Amsterdam University pointed out that thorough scientific evaluations of the outcomes of École Maternelle were still missing. A recently evolving research literature on the effect of age of school enrolment on later outcomes is still inconclusive. On the other hand, there is sound evidence that several early intervention programs aimed at disadvantaged students in the US had a substantial impact. [Response of Hessel Oosterbeek]
In a brief discussion that followed, Francis Kramarz from CREST-INSEE emphasised that any effect from early childhood education could as well be a pure selection effect in the sense that those parents who highly value education and promote their children's academic advancement in every possible way are also the ones that are most likely to enrol their children in pre-primary education facilities. This stressed the need for thorough scientific evaluation schemes to be able to assess the outcomes of such policies.

Subsequently, Francis Kramarz spoke about "Teachers' Training, Class Size and Students' Outcomes: Evidence from Third Grade Classes in France" and gave an account of his recent research. Together with two other researchers he had studied the impact of different teacher and class characteristics on third graders' outcomes. Specifically, they had looked at the effect of trained novice teachers and untrained novice teachers and at the effect of class size. Their main findings were that untrained novice teachers who in university majored in sciences compensate for their lack of training and achieve the same effect on students' outcomes as trained novice teachers. Furthermore, they found a significant effect of class size on achievement in classes with a high proportion of low-achieving pupils.
Simon Field from the OECD's Directorate for Education concentrated on the issue of "Grade Repetition and Redoublement". He argued that according to many criteria - e.g. cost effectiveness, incentive structures of decision-makers, selection of students, research evidence and common sense - the practice of grade repetition was not sustainable. [Response of Simon Field]

Following the presentations, David-Pascal Dion of DG EAC opened the general debate with a presentation on "How to Enhance Quality and Equality of Outcomes". The debate was chaired by Costas Fotakis, Conseiller of Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (DG EMPL). During the discussion it was emphasized that early education is fundamental for achieving efficient and equitable educational outcomes. Both the social and the private returns of an investment in education are higher the earlier this investment is made. However, given the recent demographic development, increasing the knowledge and the skills of the adult population also seems crucial. During the discussion, the question was also raised whether peer effects of teaching poor pupils in the same class with good pupils could offset the otherwise positive effects of sorting and grouping poor students together in small classes.

After the break, Manfred Tessaring, Head of Research of CEDEFOP, gave a talk focused on "Economic and Social Benefits of Education and Training". Tessaring shortly introduced the audience to the CEDEFOP's reports on research in vocational education and training and brought to attention the contribution of education and training to economic growth. Furthermore, he reminded of the non-material benefits such as improved health and a reduction of crime. When sharing the costs of investment in education and training, the relative benefits for the different agents - societies, individuals and enterprises - should always be considered, but at the same time the possibility of market failure should be accounted for and avoided.

The third session titled "Incentives to Improve Investment and Widen Access" was chaired by Antonis Kastrissianakis, Director of DG EMPL.

The first presentation of this session was given by John Elliott, Chief Economist of the Department for Education and Skills in England. Elliott focused his talk on "The Educational Maintenance Allowance - Estimating Its Impact on Participation". To address the relatively low participation rates in education among adolescents, an income tested allowance was introduced that was payable to 16-18 year olds who remained in full-time education. Although its impact and effects were tested in a pilot scheme, the nation-wide introduction of the Educational Maintenance Allowance had a somewhat lower positive effect on participation rates.
In his comment Giorgio Brunello from the University of Padova raised the attention of the audience to the fact that, relative to young people in France, Spain or Ireland, 18 year olds in Britain are apparently not too unhappy about being out of school and in the labour market. In his opinion, too little was known about private returns to schooling for those targeted by the reform and it was not clear that those not going to school at 17 or 18 do so because of liquidity constraints. Response of Giorgio Brunello

Nicholas Barr from the London School of Economics spoke about "Policies for Quality and Access in the Financing of Higher Education". He argued for income-contingent loans that cover both fees and living costs of students in order to be able to finance higher education via fees and to promote access for all kinds of students. Barr made the audience familiar with how student loans were introduced in the UK and what kind of problems exist with the system in place.
Respondent Peter Mederly, Director General in the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic, agreed to the system proposed by Barr and illustrated the situation in his own country, where the introduction of such a system has not been approved by parliament. [Response of Peter Mederly]

In her presentation, Gabriele Schmid from the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour delivered insights into the "Apprenticeship Training in Austria". Schmid focused specifically on measures undertaken to promote employment for persons with special needs.
In his response George Psacharopoulos, EENEE network member from Greece, raised general issues on vocational training. He pointed out that there exists no rigorous evidence in favour of the dual system for vocational training and that more research was needed in this field. [Response of George Psacharopoulos]

David-Pascal Dion of the DG EAC opened the concluding discussion with a presentation on "How to Improve Investment and Widen Access". Dion pointed out that investment in education could take the form of public investment, private investment and public-private partnerships (PPP). With respect to public investment, possible measures could be to introduce tax policies targeted at enhancing the accumulation of human capital while balancing between low- and high-skilled persons, to reduce credit constraints and to allow for more private choice. Private investment could take the form of private provision of academic and non-academic services and of paying tuition fees. Finally, public-private partnerships could increase the efficiency of public services.

At the end of the symposium, Ludger Wößmann, coordinator of the EENEE network, thanked all participants for the fruitful interchange that had taken place during the two days of the symposium. Wößmann pointed out that policy-makers and researchers could learn a lot from each other even though quite often they did not speak the same language. He was confident that the symposium had made a big contribution to an improved communication between the two groups and expressed his hopes that in the future collaborations between policy-makers and researchers (as in the case of introducing the Education Maintenance Allowance in the UK) would increase. Summarizing the main results of the symposium, Wößmann pointed out that there is not much evidence for a trade-off between efficiency and equity in education, so that an efficient education system that uses available resources to challenge every child so as to realize his or her potential can also best further equity. He also stressed that interventions targeted at disadvantaged groups are most efficient at a very early stage in the educational career.

Likewise, Gordon Clark from DG EAC thanked all the participants for contributing to the success of the symposium. Clark expressed the view that the timing of the symposium had been ideal since the Council of Education Ministers had just taken place the day before the symposium. There, the European Commission had presented its report on the progress of the member states in implementing policies aimed at the Lisbon and Bologna goals. In the second half of 2006, Finland will take over the presidency of the Council of Ministers and a conference aimed at issues of equity and efficiency in education will take place in September 2006. Clark encouraged policy-makers and researchers to keep working on the issues of efficiency and equity and to take the discussion further. He concluded by saying that in his opinion the format of the symposium had worked very well, so that everyone could look forward to the next symposium, which would probably take place in early 2007.