Transition to higher education examination outcomes: Does high school matter?

Bu makalede, öğrenci kalitesi sabitken lise kalitesinin Yüksek Öğretime Geçiş Sınavı (YGS) üzerindeki etkisi incelenmektedir. Sınıf mevcudu veya dört temel dalda öğretmen başına düşen öğrenci sayısı, lise kalitesinin birer proksisi olarak alınmaktadır. Veri kısıtı nedeniyle, sadece İstanbul’daki Anadolu Liseleri üzerinde durulmaktadır. Sadece Anadolu Liselerinin ele alınması sayesinde öğrenci kalitesi kontrol edilebilmektedir, çünkü her Anadolu Lisesinin Orta Öğretim Kurumları Seçme ve Yerleştirme Sınavı (OKS) taban puanı öğrenci kalitesinin bir göstergesi olarak kullanılabilir. 2010 ve 2011 yılı YGS sonuçları ile aynı jenerasyonun girdiği 2006 ve 2007 OKS sınav sonuçlarını kullanarak yapılan ekonometrik analize göre, öğrenci kalitesinin YGS sonuçları üzerinde en önemli etken olduğu görülmektedir. Buna karşın, öğrenci kalitesi sabit tutulduğunda, öğretmen başına düşen öğrenci sayısı veya sınıf mevcudunun YGS üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi olmadığı sonucuna varılmaktadır.. Bu sonuçlar, farklı YGS sonuçlarına ve liselere göre cluster yöntemi ile standart hataların düzeltilmesinden sonra da aynı kalmaktadır.

Yüksek öğrenime geçiş sınav sonuçlarına liselerin etkisi

This paper estimates the impact of school quality on the transition to higher education examination (abbreviated as YGS in Turkey) outcomes by controlling for the student quality. Either the class size or the teacher-pupil ratio in main branches is used as a proxy for the quality of schools. Due to data limitations we concentrate on the Anatolian High Schools (AHS) in Istanbul. This choice gives us the opportunity to control for the student quality by making use of the minimum OKS score required for admission to each AHS. Using YGS scores for 2010&2011 and OKS scores for 2006&2007 corresponding to the same cohort, we find that student quality explains the transition to higher education examination outcomes to a large extent. Holding student quality constant however, we find no evidence that class size or the teacher-pupil ratio affects average YGS score of AHS. This can be explained by the relatively standardized school resources devoted to AHS. The results are robust to different scorings of YGS and to the inclusion of clustering.

PDF

___

ANGRIST, J., and LAVY, V. (1999), “Using Maimonodes Rule to Estimate the Effect of Class Size on Scholastic Achievement," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 533-575.
ATAN, M., KARPAT, G. and GÖKSEL, A. (2002), “Ankara’daki Anadolu Liselerinin Toplam Etkinliğinin Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Saptanması”, XI. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi 23-26 Ekim 2002.
BARRO, R. J. (1991), "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries." Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1991, 106(2), pp. 407-43.
BERBEROĞLU, G. and KALENDER, I. (2005), “Investigation of Student Achievement across Years, School Types, and Regions: The SSE and PISA Analysis”, Educational Sciences and Practice, 4, (7), 21-35.
CARD, D. and KRUEGER, A. B. (1992), “Does School Quality Matter? Returns to Education and the Characteristics of Public Schools in the United States”, Journal of Political Economy, February 1992, 100(1), 1-40.
HANUSHEK, E. A. (1992), "The Trade-Off between Child Quantity and Quality," Journal of Political Economy, February 1992, 100:1, 84-117.
————(1996), “Measuring Investment in Education”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 9-30.
————(2000), “The Class Size Policy Debate: Evidence, Politics, and the Class Size Debate”, Economic Policy Institute Working Paper No. 121. Retrieved [March, 21, 2013] www.epinet.org.
————(2003), “The Failure of Input-Based Schooling Policies,” The Economic Journal, 113 (February).
HANUSHEK, E., and KIMKO, D. (2000), “Schooling, Labor-Force Quality, and the Growth of Nations," American Economic Review, 90(5), 1184-1208.
HELAL, M. (2012), “School Resources, Autonomy and Student Achievement: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design”, SOLE (The Society of Labor Economics), Retrieved [March, 12, 2013] from http://sole-jole.org/13470.pdf.
HENRÍQUEZ, F., LARA, B., MIZALA, A.and REPETTO, A. (2010), “Effective schools do exist: Low income children’s academic performance in Chile”, Documentos de Trabajo (2010 Mayo) Universidad Adolfa Ibanez Escuela de Gobierno.
HOXBY, C. (2000), ‘‘The Effects of Class Size on Student Achievement: New Evidence from Natural Population Variation,’’ The Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2000.
KRUEGER, A. B. (1999), “Experimental Estimates of Education Production Functions”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1999.
————(2000), “The Class Size Policy Debate: Understanding the Magnitude and Effect of Class Size on Student Achievement”, Economic Policy Institute Working Paper No. 121. Retrieved [March, 21, 2013] www.epinet.org.
KUKLA-ACEVEDO, S. (2009), “Do teacher characteristics matter? New results on the effects of teacher preparation on student achievement”, Economics of Education Review, 28, 49-57.
LAZEAR, E. (2001), “Educational Production.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3), 777-803, August 2001.
MANKIW, N. G., ROMER, D. and WEIL, D. (1992), "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth", Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1992, 107(2), 407-37.
MEB (Ministry of Education) Mevzuat, 2013. Retrieved [March, 13, 2013] from http://mevzuat. meb.gov.tr/html/45.html.
ROMER, P. M. (1989), "Human Capital and Growth: Theory and Evidence", NBER Working Paper No. 3173.
ROTHSTEIN, R. (2000), “The Class Size Policy Debate: Introduction”, Economic Policy Institute Working Paper No. 121. Retrieved [March, 21, 2013] www.epinet.org.