A Comparative Analysis of School-based Management in Central America
This paper provides a comparative analysis of school-based management reforms in four Central American countries (EDUCO in El Salvador, PRONADE in Guatemala, PROHECO in Honduras, and Centros Autonomos in Nicaragua). It starts by providing a charact...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Publication |
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
Washington, DC: World Bank
2012
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2006/01/6569985/comparative-analysis-school-based-management-central-america http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6978 |
Summary: | This paper provides a comparative
analysis of school-based management reforms in four Central
American countries (EDUCO in El Salvador, PRONADE in
Guatemala, PROHECO in Honduras, and Centros Autonomos in
Nicaragua). It starts by providing a characterization of the
models and then reviews how they have expanded community
participation and empowerment and school decision-making
autonomy. It then continues by analyzing the impact of
community and school empowerment on the teaching-learning
process, including measures of teacher effort; and assesses
the impact of the models on several educational outcomes,
relating this impact with the teaching-learning environment
and community empowerment. Finally, the paper attempts to
explain the impact of the reforms by discussing how
variations in reform design, country contexts and
actors' assets can explain differences and similarities
in result. The key conclusion of the paper is that
school-based management models have led generally to greater
community empowerment and teacher effort, resulting in: (a)
a better use of the existing limited capacity of teachers
and schools1; (b) higher coverage in rural areas; (c)
somewhat better student flows; and (d) learning outcomes at
least as high as in traditional schools (while
community-managed schools are generally established in the
poorest and most isolated rural areas2). Nonetheless, the
models rank poorly in terms of teacher education and
experience, adoption of active/innovative teaching
methodologies and substantive and supportive teacher
involvement in the schools. Reform design and implementation
context are crucial determinant of these and other results. |
---|