metadata: authors: 0: author: Bashir,Sajitha
1: author: Luque,Javier
count: Central America
docna: 0: docna: Equity in tertiary education in Central
            America : an overview
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Labor & Employment Law,Primary Education,Secondary Education,Tertiary Education,Educational Sciences
teratopic: Education,Gender
abstracts: cdata!: This paper analyzes the evolution in
            socio-economic and ethnic disparities in tertiary education
            attainment, participation, and completion and labor market
            outcomes in the six countries of Central America. There is
            evidence of differential progress, with Costa Rica, a
            middle-income country, and Nicaragua, a low-income country,
            having improved participation of low-income students in
            tertiary education, while this continues to be negligible in
            Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Wide differentials in
            salaries linked to socio-economic background can signal
            differences in the quality of tertiary education or prior
            educational experiences. The analysis distinguishes between
            long-term and short-term constraints and the key transitions
            in the education cycle that impede access to tertiary
            education. The main obstacle to accessing tertiary education
            for poor students is the failure to either start or complete
            secondary education, suggesting different priorities for
            different countries in addressing long-term constraints.
            However, problems also arise within tertiary education, as
            in all countries the average tertiary education completion
            rate is below 50 percent, with even lower rates for students
            from low-income families and indigenous backgrounds. The
            paper uses an OECD framework for public policies for
            promoting equity in tertiary education to assess policies in
            Central American countries and concludes that many of them
            currently lack the policies, instruments, and institutional
            mechanisms to promote greater equity in tertiary education.
            The paper highlights how valuable insights can be obtained
            from analysis of household survey data in the absence of
            comprehensive data on tertiary education which is typical of
            many developing countries.
repnme: repnme: Equity in tertiary education in Central
            America : an overview
display_title: Equity in tertiary education in
            Central America : an overview
listing_relative_url: /research/2012/08/16625151/equity-tertiary-education-central-america-overview
topicv3: Primary Education m1326139 480,Tertiary Education m1326349 482,Education m1327048 470,Secondary Education m1327058 481,Household Surveys m1504071 2761
publishtoextweb_dt: 2012-08-21T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Education,Gender
no_of_pages: 46
author_keys: 0: author_key: 459240
1: author_key: 435863
model_extractions: WPS6180 Policy Research Working Paper 6180

# An Overview

_Sajitha Bashir Javier Luque_ The World Bank Latin America and the Caribbean Region Human Development Department August 2012
Policy Research Working Paper 6180

# **Abstract**

This paper analyzes the evolution in socio-economic and ethnic disparities in tertiary education attainment, participation, and completion and labor market outcomes in the six countries of Central America. There is evidence of differential progress, with Costa Rica, a middle-income country, and Nicaragua, a low-income country, having improved participation of low-income students in tertiary education, while this continues to be negligible in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Wide differentials in salaries linked to socio-economic background can signal differences in the quality of tertiary education or prior educational experiences. The analysis distinguishes between long-term and short-term constraints and the key transitions in the education cycle that impede access to tertiary education. The main obstacle to accessing tertiary education for poor students is the failure to either start or complete secondary education, suggesting different priorities for different countries in addressing long-term constraints. However, problems also arise within tertiary education, as in all countries the average tertiary education completion rate is below 50 percent, with even lower rates for students from low-income families and indigenous backgrounds. The paper uses an OECD framework for public policies for promoting equity in tertiary education to assess policies in Central American countries and concludes that many of them currently lack the policies, instruments, and institutional mechanisms to promote greater equity in tertiary education. The paper highlights how valuable insights can be obtained from analysis of household survey data in the absence of comprehensive data on tertiary education which is typical of many developing countries.

This paper is a product of the Human Development Department, Latin America and the Carribean Region. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at sbashir@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# Equity in Tertiary Education in Central America: An Overview<sup>1</sup>

By Sajitha Bashir and Javier Luque<sup>**2**</sup>

**Keywords: Inequality, Tertiary, Education, Central America**

**Classification code:  I240**

**Sector Board: Education**

> 1 This article is based on analysis undertaken in the context of the World Bank’s study on Equity in Tertiary Education (J. Salmi and R. Bassett, “Opportunities for All? A Global Study on Equity in Tertiary Education” (forthcoming)). The analysis was partly funded by a Trust Fund financed by The Dutch Government for the purpose of studying equity in developing countries. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent.

> 2  Sajitha Bashir (Sector Manager, Education - Africa Human Development Department - Email: sbashir@worldbank.org) Javier Luque (Senior Education Economist - Latin America and the Caribbean Human Development Department - Email: <u>jluque@worldbank.org</u> ). The authors wish to thank Pablo Adrian Garlati Bertoldi for excellent research assistance, Jessica Acosta for formatting the paper and  ICEFI for undertaking data collection and analysis on public expenditures on education in Central America.
# **1. INTRODUCTION**

Latin America is known for its historically high levels of consumption and income inequality, and within the region, many of the Central American countries stand out for their high levels of inequality<sup>3</sup> . The Gini index for income for these countries, around 2009, was between 0.47 and 0.52 (World Bank, 2011) in comparison to an average of 0.31 for OECD countries.<sup>4</sup> Between 2002 and 2008, income inequality went down significantly in almost all Latin American economies (Gasparini and Lustig, 2010). Central America, however, presents a mixed picture: while El Salvador and Panama showed a slight decrease in the income Gini between circa 2005 and circa 2009, Honduras stayed at the same level and Costa Rica showed an increase in inequality (World Bank, 2011).<sup>5</sup> Fiscal transfers can be used as a way of offsetting consumption inequality, but eliminating income inequality requires interventions targeting the “deep roots of inequality”, in particular skills and knowledge, as the lack of education limits the access to good quality jobs and shapes life-time opportunities and income structure. The decline in inequality in Latin America in recent years has been attributed to both factors: a more progressive allocation of government spending through monetary transfers, together with improved access to education and fall in skill premia in the labor market (López-Calva and Lustig, 2010; Gasparini and Lustig, 2011; World Bank, 2011).

Access to and completion of tertiary education is particularly important for addressing income inequality through two channels. First, enabling individuals of lower socio-economic background to access higher earnings through tertiary education can contribute directly to reducing inequality. Extra years of education translate in general into higher salaries and therefore, inequality in education attainment can contribute to inequality in income. Second, a high quality tertiary education system can build the strong human capital basis for economies to compete globally and increase growth, laying the ground for both higher productivity and earnings, and more fiscal space that can create room for redistribution. With respect to the first issue, the possible “equalizing” role of education depends to a great extent on whether students from poor backgrounds are able to reach tertiary education. Moreover, even if they do reach this level, they may not benefit from higher earnings if the labor market does not value their knowledge, skills and competencies to the same extent as of richer students. This could happen either due to the poor quality of education institutions attended by the poor or the better access of the rich to quality jobs through family and social connections (or a combination of both). These factors can significantly attenuate the potentially “equalizing” role of education and even generate negative incentives for investing in higher levels of education among the poor.

In this paper, we analyze the inequality in access to and completion of tertiary education in Central America, as it is an important means to reduce income inequality in the long run. Because access to tertiary education is contingent on successfully completing lower levels of education, the paper also examines the inequality in progression through the education system.

> 3 The Central American countries analyzed in this paper includes Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. 4 OECD.StatExtracts. Income distribution- Inequality- GINI coefficient after taxes and transfers for latest year.  Available online: <u>http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=26068.  Date accessed: June 14, 2012.</u> 5 These three countries are the only available in World Bank, 2011.

2
The Central American sub-region is of interest not only because of its high levels of income inequality, but also because of its heterogeneity and the fact that several countries have only recently emerged from civil war. The sub-region comprises two upper middle income countries (Costa Rica and Panama), two lower middle income countries (El Salvador and Guatemala) and two low income countries (Honduras and Nicaragua). Further, Guatemala and Honduras have a sizeable proportion of indigenous population, while Honduras and Nicaragua also have people of Afro-Caribbean origin. Both these groups have traditionally had limited access to tertiary education. Since the early 1990s, the focus in almost all countries (with the possible exception of Panama), especially those affected by civil war (El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua) has been on promoting basic education, often using innovative models to expand coverage. The situation regarding tertiary education is different: on the one hand, there have been few policy changes with respect to public tertiary education while, on the other, the private sector has expanded rapidly. There has been no systematic analysis of the progress made in tertiary education, particularly for lower income and indigenous groups.

Our study relies heavily on household surveys but also draws on analysis of public spending data and qualitative studies of the participation of indigenous people in tertiary education in Nicaragua and Guatemala.<sup>6</sup> We begin by examining the growth in average education attainment and different measures of education inequality, as well as inter-generational and intragenerational inequality. Next, we present the progress of tertiary education attainment over time, enrollment and completion rates by income quintiles and the participation of indigenous people. This is followed by an examination of labor market outcomes for tertiary education graduates. The following section analyses the key obstacles to reaching tertiary education for students from different backgrounds across the education cycle. Finally, we evaluate the level and role of public funding for tertiary education, including the incidence of public spending on tertiary education and assess the public policy options for addressing these obstacles.

# **2. RELATED LITERATURE**

Research on education inequality has been relatively scarce and, to our knowledge, there has been no analysis done for the Central American countries. Thomas, Wang and Fan (2001), employing techniques from the income inequality literature, pioneered the analysis of inequality in education attainment across the world using the Gini coefficient and demonstrated that inequality (measured in this manner) had fallen in most countries, as average education attainment increased between 1960 and 1990. Their study did not examine inequality at different levels of education. As countries attain higher levels of coverage in primary and secondary education, inequality in tertiary education becomes increasingly more relevant.

Going beyond the documentation of inequality patterns, several studies have focused on the determinants of inequality in education attainment. Inequality in education attainment has been correlated with lack of resources and the existence of market failures in the market for education financing, justifying public intervention, in most cases through the provision of free

> 6 These analyses were also undertaken as part of the World Bank’s study on equity in tertiary education.

3
education (Hanushek, 2002). Nonetheless, despite free education, inequalities in education attainment still remain. New research has identified additional sources in inequality in education attainment. For example, Caneiro and Heckman (2002) add to the traditional short-term constraints (financial barriers), long-term constraints (such as family background and prior education attainment), finding an important impact of the later. Following a different approach, the human opportunity index advanced by Barros et al.(2009) provides a synthetic measure of inequity in children’s access to basic services. These opportunities to access basic education ultimately influence access to tertiary education, but the index itself does not examine tertiary education itself.

Several recent studies on Latin America have documented the inequality in access and completion of tertiary education for lower income groups. Gonzalez (2007) finds that while more students gain access to colleges in Latin American countries, lower income students face a greater probability of failure and desertion. In a study in Latin America, Mendes Braga (2008) finds that “ _the expansion of access to higher education has not led to a proportionally decrease in inequality, since access and completion still depend on socio-economic factors”._ 4
# **3. CENTRAL AMERICA – EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS AND INEQUALITY**

# **Progress in Education Attainment**

The growth in the stock of human capital, as measured by the years of education of the population aged 25 years and over, has increased considerably in Central America. Figure 1 shows that, since 1970, the average years of education in the region increased by approximately 1 year per decade, and is currently at about 6.4 years. This is still below the Latin American average of around 8 and moreover, progress has been limited in comparisons with high performing countries (not shown in graph). For instance, Korea, which in 1960 had only a year’s edge over Central America, rapidly increased its average educational attainment consistently over 5 decades, and widened its edge to over 5 years. Brazil, which started out even lower than Central America in 1960, after two decades of stagnation, has accelerated and by 2010, the mean years of education exceeded that of Central America.

In short, as a region, Central America moved to a slightly higher trajectory from 1970 onwards, but has not made a significant shift, and this average itself is the result of sharply differing trends across countries resulting in a widening intra-regional inequality in educational attainment (Figure 2). The stars are Panama and Costa Rica, which have steadily accumulated education, though surprisingly, Costa Rica’s progress seems to have slowed down between 2000 and 2010. For both of them, the shift to a higher trajectory seems to have been around 1970. For Guatemala and Honduras, the shift came later, around 1975, but Guatemala in particular shifted back to a slower growth in education attainment from 1980. Although this could be a reflection of the civil war, the key issue is that there has been no change in trajectory even after the Peace Accords of the early 1990s. The other two countries which also suffered from civil wars in the eighties have pursued different paths. For Nicaragua, there has been slow but steady progress, with no major shifts. For El Salvador, on the other hand, the transition to a higher trajectory came in 1990, following the end of the civil war, surpassing both Nicaragua and Honduras in 2000.

The differential growth in educational attainment of the three Central American countries affected by civil war highlights the difference that sustained policy and programmatic interventions can make. Among the Central American countries, the true outlier is El Salvador which, in the twenty years since the end of the civil war, increased its average years of education by almost as much as Costa Rica has done in forty years. This reflects the strong policy and financial commitment to expanding access to primary and basic education through community managed schools, facilitated by the continuity of policies due to the fact that one party remained in power for 20 years, and by the financial support of international institutions. By contrast, Guatemala, which also concluded peace agreements around the same time as El Salvador, has currently the same education attainment that El Salvador had in 1990, and the gap between the two countries has widened from 1 year to about 3.5 years. Changes in government in Guatemala have led to changes in policies and programs in school education, including primary education, limiting the increase in mean years of schooling. In the case of Nicaragua, although different governments adopted different approaches between 1980 and 2005, and subsequently, there has as yet been no sharp break with historical trends in average attainment. As we will see later, however, from 2005 onwards, Nicaragua has made rapid progress in primary education and this is likely to be reflected in future years.

5
<!-- Start of picture text --> 12<br>== Central America<br>= =~ Latin America and the Caribbean<br>10 . |— —East Asia and the Pacific coyenennnsenseeeeset?<br>+sees* Europe and Central Asia ree<br>++eae++ Middle East and North Africa ae<br>g ‘ ==-=-South Asia we -—<br>od we --<br>3 = + =Sub-Saharan Africa en ao<br>2° we ~ eet -se<br>coy wee we -<— or<br>c weet = “ow —--' lee<br>$ 4 -o— ee -_-<br>= a -_—-¢ -———_ stwee. -- ~--<br>no oe - --"-"”<br>e---or — -— we.iSer<br>2 walses<br>—_ + eee<br>Zea cEapanangnnnneeree==: aor toe<br>0<br>1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010<br>Year<br>10 —— Central America<br>g || sceres+ Costa Rica _—<br>— =Panama -_ a<br>; - oa rca<br>- -® -Guatemala 7 eo .<br>— — ElSalvador te<br>—_36 ’‘ — <_ Honduras se= aeeo , a “7<br>z — + Nicaragua a y < a<br>ras — ” — -<br>oO”-8 os —— _— _ = - .* ae = anZz —a--— « -7 «<br>o TT Tan en nen eeeeeeeee Tete eee ge® aeoonr ~e----e"<br>= A@-27 _-e-7"<br>3 = Aw - -_-—--~<br>— _ ee - = - 7 -_——-e~<br>a<br>2 va = -= —_— — o* -*~<br>peewee = ----0"<br>@----@----e----e---<br>1<br>0<br>1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010<br>Year<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **Education Inequality**

The improvement in education attainment has led to a reduction in education inequality, though different measures of inequality present somewhat different perspectives. During the last fifty years, the region has been able to systematically reduce education inequality, as the Gini coefficient of years of education decreased from approximately 0.70 to 0.43. By construction, the Gini coefficient falls when the mean years of education rises. It is striking, however, that the region’s Gini coefficient in 2010 was higher than that of the advanced economies in 1960. In 2010, the educational Gini coefficient in advanced economies was 0.18 (Figure 3)<sup>7</sup> .

**Figure 3: Evolution of Gini Coefficient in Education 1960 – 2010 Central America and Advanced Economies**

<!-- Start of picture text --> 0.8<br>0.7<br>0.6<br>0.5<br>0.4<br>0.3<br>0.2<br>0.1<br>0<br>1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010<br>Advanced Economies Central America<br>Data Source: Barro-Lee 2010<br><!-- End of picture text --> Average figures for the region mask important disparities between countries and different indicators also highlight the varying degrees to which disparities have been reduced. As shown by the education Lorenz curve (Figure 4), Costa Rica and Panama are more equal than El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, which share a similar distribution. Guatemala stands out with its markedly higher degree of inequality. Table 1 shows the evolution of inequality between 2001 and 2009 using different indicators. Using the difference in education attainment between the highest and lowest groups (the 75th and 25th percentiles in terms of years of education), none of the countries in the region registered a decline in this measure of inequality. The standard deviation in years of education, another measure of inequality, declined only in one country, Honduras. Based on these two indicators, therefore, the range in education attainment within

> 7 Gini coefficients were approximated using detailed information on levels (years) of education achieved using the Barro-Lee (2010) dataset. “Advanced economies” represents countries classified as such in the dataset.

7
<!-- Start of picture text --> ~ || ——— CostaRica ---~- Panama f<br>----------- Guatemala —-—-- El Salvador (;<br>—-—— Honduras — — —-- Nicaragua fa<br>Co /<br>Q- f<br>0) YW Y fff<br>4 WA y a va f<br>oO 4 fs<br>o> x 4 4.<7 ““<br>f L “<br>E Lo<br>ON ae a to”4 osC<br>Ze LO<br>all ~ “<br>0 2 4 : 6. 8 1<br>Cummulative population<br><!-- End of picture text -->
**Table 1: Evolution in Inequality – Key Indicators, Age 25 years or more**

|||**Ci**|**rca 20**|**01**|||**C**|**irca 2**|**009**||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Mean**|**Median**|**SD**|**Dif 75 25**|**Gini**|**Mean**|**Median**|**SD**|**Dif 75 25**|**Gini**|
|**Costa Rica**|7.3|6|6|4.3|0.32|7.9|6|5|4.3|0.30|
|**Panama**|9.1|9|6|5.0|0.31|9.4|9|6|5.0|0.30|
|**Guatemala**|3.7|2|6|4.6|0.63|4.4|3|6|4.9|0.58|
|**El Salvador**|5.8|5|8|5.2|0.50|6.4|6|9|5.3|0.47|
|**Honduras**|5.1|4|5|4.6|0.49|5.4|6|5|4.4|0.46|
|**Nicaragua**|5.0|4|8|4.7|0.51|5.9|6|7|5.0|0.48|

Note: Dif 75 25 refers to the difference in mean years of education between the 75th and 25th percentile. Source: Authors calculations based on Costa Rica EHPM 2001 and 2009, Guatemala ENCOVI 2000 and 2006, Honduras EPHPM 2001 and 2009, Nicaragua EMNV 2001 and 2009, Panama ECH 2000 and 2009, El Salvador EHPM 2001 and 2009

# **Inter and Intra Generation Evolution of Inequality**

The average gain in years of education is mainly achieved by marginal gains as new generations accumulate more years of education, which raises two important questions. First, is the education achievement of more educated new generations more equal? And second, what is the current level of intergenerational inequality?

Clearly, new generations are more educated, and currently the education achievement reaches its peak for the age group 25-29 years old in Panama and for the age group 20-24 years old in other countries in the region (Figure 5). Surprisingly, no country in the region has a cohort that has finished on average upper secondary; Panama is the closest one to achieving that level (approximately 11 years of education); in Costa Rica, the highest level achieved is lower secondary education (9 years) whilst in Guatemala the youngest cohort finishes only primary education (approximately 6 years of education). In comparison, in the OECD countries, an average of 81% of 25-34 years olds have achieved upper secondary education<sup>9</sup> and the average number of years of schooling for this cohort is just over 12.5 years.<sup>10</sup> Analyzing the education attainment across cohorts enables us to compare the speed at which accumulation of human capital took place over time. Of particular interest is the fact that Costa Rica, Panama and Nicaragua had “plateaus” in the accumulation of human capital, the first two during the period 1960 to 1970 (ie for the 40-49 year age group), and Nicaragua in the period 1970 to 80 (30-39 year age group). For El Salvador and Guatemala, successive cohorts have steadily increased their investment in education, albeit starting from a low level.

> 9 OECD Education at a Glance 2011.  Population with at least upper secondary education (2009)- Year of reference is 2002.

> 10 OECD Family database.   Educational Achievement expressed in average number of years in formal education (2004), Year of reference is 2003. Available online: <u>http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3746,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html.  Data accessed: June</u> 15, 2012.

9
<!-- Start of picture text --> 12 6<br>(ee 5 os<br>10 poss \ a Ae Te<br>5 “ 7 ‘\\ an° ltaie ataeTN se(eeiisFee oN<br>2 “ ceaoN i i ae ~ ne<br>s o - .TM Ss Poa ae Sn an<br>3 8) a eer N 2 - _—— ~ ~ .<br>Cy 7 ao feos 8 Lao ~~ _ oN Ni<br>oO° a _ Le4 >.Ne >c 4 NN~~ vsNs<br>a — ee Oo wee 2 VON ©<br>©> 6 “7tr_—— —_—— eeee tes wg s x \ YY.AS,<br>=of aeee oscee ne}o \\ WSNy<br>=® AU “oaA we wee be]a \\ \\<br>4707 wen B33 v\<br>44 ae is a<br>ee —— CostaRica —-——~—- Panama a —— CostaRica ———~—- Panama \<br>ae ----------- Guatemala —-—-- El Salvador s--s------- Guatemala —-—-- El Salvador ‘<br>2 —-—-— Honduras —— — ~ Nicaragua 242 TT Honduras — — — - Nicaragua<br>60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 sama)ge35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 19-15 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 Samy)ge35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 19-15<br><!-- End of picture text -->
ratio has increased from 1.8 to 2.2. This evolution indicates a widening intra-generational inequality, given that the mean years of education also rose for the 25<sup>th</sup> percentile, only at a slower rate than for the 75<sup>th</sup> percentile. A similar pattern is observed across other Central American countries, suggesting an increase in intra-generation inequality, even as average years of education attainment increase across the board.

It is important to note that the existence and widening of intra-generation inequality will lead to the persistence or widening of inequality, as new generations replace older generations. Further, if intra-generation inequality is correlated with socio-economic status, this is cause for greater concern as it perpetuates socio-economic inequality.

|**Age **|**Table 2: D**<br>**Costa Rica**|**ifference**<br>**Panama**|**75 percent**<br>**Guatemala**|**ile-25 perce**<br>**El Salvador**|**ntile by ag**<br>**Honduras**|**e**<br>**Nicaragua**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||**Differenc**<br>|**e 75percentil**<br>|**e-25percentile**<br>|<br>||
|15-19|3|3|4|4|3|4|
|20-24|6|4|8|6|5|6|
|25-29|7|6|7|7|6|7|
|30-34|5|8|8|8|5|7|
|35-39|5|6|9|9|6|7|
|40-44|5|6|6|10|6|8|
|45-49|5|6|6|9|6|7|
|50-54|5|6|6|8|4|9|
|55-59|5|6|6|9|6|7|
|60-64|6|8|3|6|6|6|
|||**Ratio 7**|**5percentile/2 **|**5percentile**|||
|15-19|15-19|15-19|15-19|15-19|15-19|15-19|
|20-24|20-24|20-24|20-24|20-24|20-24|20-24|
|25-29|25-29|25-29|25-29|25-29|25-29|25-29|
|30-34|30-34|30-34|30-34|30-34|30-34|30-34|
|35-39|35-39|35-39|35-39|35-39|35-39|35-39|
|40-44|40-44|40-44|40-44|40-44|40-44|40-44|
|45-49|45-49|45-49|45-49|45-49|45-49|45-49|
|50-54|50-54|50-54|50-54|50-54|50-54|50-54|
|55-59|55-59|55-59|55-59|55-59|55-59|55-59|
|60-64|60-64|60-64|60-64|60-64|60-64|60-64|
|Source: Auth|ors’ calculations ba|sed on several h|ousehold surveys c|irca 2009.|||

11
**4. TERTIARY EDUCATION ATTAINMENT, ENROLMENT AND COMPLETION - EQUITY DIFFERENTIALS**

# **Structure of the Tertiary Education Systems in Central America**

The characteristics of tertiary education system greatly influence access and completion and here we briefly present the key characteristics of the Central American systems. Tertiary education comprises a relatively small non-university or para-university sector, offering 2-3 short courses and a university sector offering the traditional long-duration courses, usually 4-5 years for the first degree. One common characteristic shared by the Central American systems is that public universities provide almost free education, funded mainly by public resources. In at least three countries - Costa Rica and Nicaragua and Guatemala – the level of public funding for public universities is constitutionally guaranteed.<sup>11</sup> Further, public universities are highly autonomous, with freedom to set admission policies, offer courses, and provide scholarships and financial aid.

The governance of the public tertiary education system differs according to the number of universities. Costa Rica and Panama each have 5 public universities, which are self-regulated by a Council of Rectors of Public Universities. El Salvador and Guatemala each have a single large public university. In both countries, the constitution prescribes that the sole public university has the authority to manage public higher education. In Honduras, there are several public universities and institutes; however, the university sector as a whole is led by the large public university, the National University of Honduras. Nicaragua has 4 public universities. Unique among the Central American countries, the rector’s council (Consejo Nacional de Universidades) in Nicaragua includes both public and private institutions, although it does not infringe on the autonomous decision-making authority of the public universities.

Despite the existence of free public tertiary education, the private sector is large in Central America in terms of number of institutions and enrolment. Many private institutions are very small, have few accredited programs. They receive no public subsidies as a general rule. A few among them are considered of high quality, but there is no quality assurance or accreditation system that provides information. In Costa Rica there are 50 private universities; in Panama, 37, in Guatemala 11 and in Nicaragua 48. For relatively small tertiary education systems, these represent a large number of institutions. With the exception of Nicaragua, the private universities are regulated by the rectors or associations of the private universities, which also have the authority to recognize new private institutions.

Entrance into tertiary education varies by country and even by university. Completion of secondary education (11 or 12 years, depending on the country) is mandatory, although most countries do not have a common school leaving examination. All public universities in the region have an entrance examination. Private universities in El Salvador and Guatemala also set entrance examinations. In some cases, students that do not reach the required academic level have the chance to engage in remedial courses.

> 11 The actual mechanisms vary across countries. In Costa Rica, the constitution guarantees a certain proportion of GDP for public education. The public universities and the government negotiate a financial agreement for 5 years. The most recent agreement (20112015) sets a target of public spending on tertiary education to reach 1.5 % of GDP by 2015. The Nicaraguan constitution assigns 6 percent of the government revenues to tertiary education.

12
<!-- Start of picture text -->
| Costa Rica ————- Panama<br>-----------——-— GuatemalaHonduras ——-—-—-—-- ElNicaraguaSalvador Weer _<br>20 oon<br>peewee ener<br>4<br>a<br>4<br>2 7<br>@15 a<br>~Cc a 7<br>2 “ _—oT<br>£ ve — = =o _<br>sf i ee<br>4 ~<br>ao<br>5 —-<a < Rarer ng eae nn—_—— eeaeons eeetee<br>= eo<br>0<br>60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 25-29<br>Age<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> 60 80<br>-aan 60 oor ==<br>2o a “ 7 aT _ 2 a so -- _ =_ _ = =<br>le “ _ a £ “ <=<br>2= ’ “ a _ a _ a < - ecfS2fS22 40 ’77 7 aT - “7 oT---_"<br>w Z / ae= ee 7 _ £aa Aeii - en--<br>ee—_ ——sos CostaRicaGuatemala ---—~--—-—-- PanamEl Salvi cae.. svs---—— CostaRicaGuatemalaGuatemala —--—-—-—-—--—-—-- El<br>0 ——— Honduras — — — ~ Nicarag q ——-— Honduras —-— —-<br>60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 25-29 60-69 50.59 40-49 30-39 25-29<br>Age Age<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> 80<br>60 oor ==<br>_ 2 a so -- _ =_ _ = =<br>£ “ <= -—<br>ecfS2fS22 40 ’77 7 aT - “7 oT---_"<br>_ £aa Aeii - en--<br>cae.. svs---—— CostaRicaGuatemalaGuatemala —--—-—-—-—--—-—-- PanamEl Salvi<br>q ——-— Honduras —-— —- Nicarag<br>60-69 50.59 40-49 30-39 25-29<br>Age<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **Participation in Tertiary Education by Quintile**

Current tertiary enrollment rates provide one indication of future trends in tertiary education attainment. On the whole, there has been no significant increase in the tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER)<sup>12</sup> (Table 3). Yet there are some surprises. Costa Rica has caught up with and overtaken Panama (where the GER has declined slightly): the GER rose from 39 percent in 2001 to 49 percent in 2009. The true surprise is Nicaragua, which has a relatively high enrolment ratio of about 29 percent, about 3 percentage points higher than in 2001, and above that of El Salvador (26 percent). This is consistent with the relatively higher levels of tertiary education attainment noted earlier for Nicaragua. The enrollment rate in Guatemala and Honduras is about 16 percent, which is similar to the levels in low income countries, and has remained stable over the decade. These rates compare with an average gross enrolment ratio of 76 percent in 2010 for OECD countries.<sup>13</sup> In all countries, participation in tertiary education is extremely unequal across socioeconomic groups. The stark gap in tertiary enrollment between the top and bottom income quintiles<sup>14</sup> is reflected in Figure 8. In Costa Rica, the increase in the tertiary GER has been accompanied by a great increase in inequality. While the participation rate of the poorest quintile in Costa Rica is the highest among all countries (about 20 percent), this proportion has hardly changed between 2001 and 2009. On the other hand, the enrollment ratio of the richest quintile has increased and is now 130 percent. A GER of more than 100 percent indicates that for the richest group, a large number of students are beyond the theoretical age group of 18-23 years. In Panama, less than 20 percent of the bottom quintile of the age group is

|**Table 3: G**<br>**Ter**<br>|**ross Enrollm**<br>**tiary Educati**<br>|**ent Ratio**<br>**on**<br>|
|---|---|---|
|**Country**|**Circa 2001 **|**Circa 2009**|
|**Costa Rica**|39%|49%|
|**Panama**|50%|47%|
|**Guatemala**|16%|15%|
|**ElSalvador **|21%|26%|
|**Honduras**|16%|17%|
|**Nicaragua**<br>Source: Authors’ ca|26%<br>lculations based on|29%<br>several household|

<mark>Source: Authors’ calculations based on several household surveys circa 2001 and circa 2009</mark> enrolled in tertiary education, while for the top quintile, the enrollment ratio is close to 100 percent. In short, in both countries, the richest sections are not only likely to enter tertiary education, they also tend to stay longer than the theoretical duration of the program. For the four other countries in Central America, there is only a minimal representation of the poorest sections of the population at the tertiary level, and this percentage has hardly changed between 2000 and 2009.

The enrollment rate for the richest quintile has increased in all countries, with the sharpest increase in Costa Rica. Hence, although by one measure Costa Rica is more equitable as it is provides more opportunities to the poor than other Central American countries in as a larger proportion of the poor are enrolled in tertiary education, by another measure, it is the most

> 12 Following standard practice, the tertiary GER is defined as the number of people currently enrolled in tertiary education divided by the population of the 18-23 year old age group.

> 13 UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Gross enrolment ratio Total, ISCED 5 and 6. Available online: <u>http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx.  Date accessed: June 15, 2012.</u> 14 Quintiles are estimated using household income per capita.

15
inequitable, with the largest gap between the richest and the poorest. Costa Rica has made the greatest effort in providing access to the poorest sections; however, the enrollment amongst the richer groups has risen even faster, probably due to the rapid expansion of private higher education.

16
<!-- Start of picture text --> Figure 8: Tertiary Gross Enrollment Rate by Income<br>Quintiles, circa 2001 and 2009<br>140%<br>120%<br>100%<br>80%<br>60%<br>40%<br>20%<br>0%<br>2001 2009 2000 2009 2000 2006 2001 2009 2001 2009 2001 2009<br>Costa Rica Panama Guatemala El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua<br>Quintile 1 Quintile 5 Mean<br>Source: Authors’ calculations based on several household surveys circa 2001 and circa<br>2009<br>Gross enrollment rate<br><!-- End of picture text --> The relatively high enrollment rates of the richer section of the population are related partly to the growth of the private sector. As Table 4 shows, the private sector accounts for a high share of tertiary education enrollment<sup>15</sup> in many countries: the shares are close to 70 percent in Nicaragua, 60 percent in El Salvador, 55 percent in Costa Rica and 48 percent in Guatemala. The lowest share is in Honduras at about 35 percent of total enrolment<sup>16</sup> . In all countries, **Table 4: Percentage enrolled in private** the top quintile constitutes the overwhelming **tertiary education, circa 2009** share of private tertiary enrollment.

|**Country**|**All**|**Quintile 1**|**Quintile 5**|
|---|---|---|---|
|**Costa Rica**|54.7%|33.8%|58.9%|
|**Guatemala**|47.5%|0.0%|50.0%|
|**El Salvador**|63.2%|55.0%|72.4%|
|**Honduras**|33.9%|24.1%|36.4%|
|**Nicaragua**<br>Source:Authors cal|70.8%<br>culations base|66.7%<br>d onseveralhouse|74.1%<br>hold surveys circa|

Of the relatively small share of the poor who enroll in tertiary education, a surprisingly large proportion is enrolled in private institutions, even though public universities offer free education. Data for Nicaragua show that about two-thirds of those from the first quintile attend private institutions. In El Salvador about 55 percent of students in tertiary education attend private institutions Amongst students from quintiles 1 to 3, the private enrollment share is about 40 percent, while in the richest quintile, this share <mark>Source: Authors calculations based on several household surveys circa 2009</mark> rises to 60 percent (not shown in table) In Costa Rica, about 34 percent of students from quintile 1, and 40 percent form quintiles 2 and 3 attend private institutions (not shown in table). The equity objectives of public financing of tertiary education are drawn into question when a

> 15 Tertiary education enrollment defined as population attending any education level with 13 years of education of more. For Nicaragua is 12 years of education or more.

> 16 Household surveys in Panama do not distinguish between enrollment in public and private tertiary institutions.

17
|

~~7~~ ~~_~~ <!-- Start of picture text --> 80<br>70<br>60<br>50<br>& 40<br>30<br>20<br>10<br>0<br>SeQs sSs sse ;sSs Ssse sese<br>FH CLEE SKSE FoFSS CKSS wsSS<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> 100 a<br>90 ae y<br>80 7 he a<br>70 “ / 40 -AR<br>oao / wi -F<br>604 i ae 7<br>8Py Tree ae”a _—sZe/ 7 ;<br>& 50 Joe ) 4<br>40 CfATiedI<br>805 ongt4 7 4<br>- FY FF yy<br>UC<br>204 4-7<br>Zo ——— CostaRica —-—-—~—- Panama<br>10 ssros-e--+ Guatemala —-—-- El Salvador<br>- —-—— Honduras — —:— - Nicaragua<br>20 22 24 26 28 30<br>Age<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> 8<br>©<br>3=<br>5<br>£4<br>£<br>:<br>2<br>ae<br>ee<br>U7<br>“7<br>0 “7 ——— Non indigenous + ~—-—~—-—- Indigenous<br>60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 25-29<br>Age<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> 12<br>10<br>p=©8 ise 7“a<br>5 fos “<br>E / ~ SSL<br>£6 /<br>L /<br>44<br>Z /<br>_— /<br>5 YN / /<br>SU ——— Non indigenous —-—~—-—- Indigenous<br>60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 25-29<br>Age<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> & 240<br>o<br>= 220<br>oO<br>x=<br>® 200<br>on<br>xo}<br>a= 180<br>= 160<br>&<br>te 140<br>2<br>& 120<br>Ss<br>100<br>SFND SF$ SH SHgo 2 SHND SSgs 2<br>PP 2 & r@ sO Ss C & SP<br>Ce SES SE FP PF SS SS<br>Se SX FEF MX SK SS<br>& & QP Q oF oF & o Ww LQ WS<br>14%<br>12% ><br>10%<br>a a<br>8%; | e ry<br>6% +*<br>4% a LL ala<br>2% | a | | a<br>0%<br>2001 | 2009 | 2000 | 2009 | 2000 | 2006 | 2001 | 2009 | 2001 | 2009 | 2001 | 2009<br>CostaRica | Panama | Guatemala | El Salvador | Honduras | Nicaragua<br>@Total m5 years of education or more<br><!-- End of picture text -->
Completing tertiary education confers substantial benefits on graduates. The premium in annual earnings compared to people who have at least secondary education is about 200 percent for all countries, except Nicaragua where it is about 175 percent (Figure 12Figure ). In the OECD, the premium in annual earnings for adults who have graduated from tertiary education is 153 percent compared to earnings of those who have just secondary education.<sup>20</sup> There is little variation between 2001 and 2009 (except Nicaragua, where there was a sharp fall) and, indeed, little variation across countries in this premium. The high private returns to tertiary education suggested by these premiums should encourage individuals to invest in tertiary education. A similar signal is conveyed by unemployment rates which are in general lower for those with tertiary education than for the labor force as whole (Figure 13Figure ). The exception is, again, Nicaragua in 2009, where the unemployment rate for graduates is significantly higher.

Figure 14 shows, for all six countries, the advantage conferred on average by tertiary education on life-time incomes: workers with secondary and primary education are essentially stuck in low-paying jobs, with little increase in income over their lifetime, while those with tertiary education enjoy not only a higher starting income, but also continued increases over their working life. Again, Nicaragua appears to be an exception, where tertiary education graduates have higher incomes, but these do not seem to increase with experience.

> 20 OECD at a Glance 2011.  Relative earnings of the population with income from employment (2009 or latest available year).

22
<!-- Start of picture text --> Costa Rica<br>2500<br>a 2000 - ras<br>a BON te yo<br>o Fe wo ‘<br>> 1500 Getta NF : \<br>8 Poet ‘<br>£ 10004 ~~ ;<br>8 ee” Ne aa<br>© Dennett LLL<br>+ 5004. Eee<br>0<br>24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64<br>Age<br>——— Less than secondary ——-—~—- Secondary<br>s------> In tertiaryor above<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Guatemala<br>2500<br>a 2000 i<br>a P i<br>= 1500 gon FRA fh<br>£ 1000 a Ke<br>fe}8o tree- Setee7 le net_ ee 7 7 uN\ ‘‘H<br>0<br>SSDOAHGOVRAOOODaABOOOGEge<br>——— Less than secondary —-———- Secondary<br>ss------- In tertiaryor above<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Honduras<br>2500<br>a. 2000 a<br>a moO<br>a a ve! %,<br>& 4500 et Sf .<br>£ 1000 ween ;<br>+a ae - ‘NU<br>5007-—-----<br>0<br>24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Age44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64<br>——— Less than secondary —-—-—~—- Secondary<br>ss-e-----+ In tertiaryor above<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Panama<br>2500<br>a 2000<br>a<br>a<br>> 1500 we<br>8 on ees Sree<br>£ 1000 cog et .<br>8 os — ‘<br>© os<br>+ 5005-7 ae<br>0<br>24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64<br>Age<br>——— Less than secondary ——-—~—- Secondary<br>ccc In tertiaryor above<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> EI Salvador<br>2500 a<br>a 2000 * py<br>o BM : .<br>> 1500 oo ete of a mast v<br>2 40004"<br>fo ,<br>ao ooo L. y*Noe<br>0<br>ZADOBASODAAOOOMAMge HOG<br>——— Less than secondary ——~—~—- Secondary<br>ccc In tertiaryor above<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Nicaragua<br>2500<br>a. 2000<br>o<br>a.<br>> 1500<br>£ 1000 a<br>3 ceeceageneeetTTttagett gen ttt Tree et teat \<br>500 ------" ee<br>0<br>ZADOBASODAAOOOMAMge HOG<br>—— Less than secondary ——~——- Secondary<br>sree In tertiaryor above<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> 16<br>Q A Q<br>4A<br>ray<br>1.5<br>2<br>©<br>g 14<br>oO A A<br>s ° $<br>1.3<br>a<br>1.2 °<br>. 2 eo $ S Re<br>gPa Qe& SeRS< ©sf& cy& ~SF&<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **6. OBSTACLES TO REACHING TERTIARY EDUCATION**

# **The Importance of Household Factors**

Enrollment decisions in education in general, and in tertiary education in particular, are made by individuals assessing expected benefits in terms of extra valued added versus the expect cost (tuition, transportation and related cost, and lost income of work). The decisions are affected by both short-term constraints (financial constraints) and long-term constraints (such as the household’s characteristics). The former affect the ability to finance the costs of education. The latter, in particular the education level of the household, which is difficult to change in the short run, affect the student’s progression through school as well as the quality of education received. More educated households are more likely to provide family support to continuing with education, as they are more familiar with the lifelong gains associated with education attainment, especially tertiary education. Additionally, children in more educated households may be more likely to develop non-cognitive skills and attitudes, which have a value per se, and at the same time interact positively with the cognitive skills acquired in the education system, therefore increasing the expected payoffs of education. Educated parents also seek out higher quality schools.

If the objective of the education system is to provide equal opportunities to all children to reach tertiary education, the effect of household characteristics in attaining tertiary education should be minimized. In order to provide a measure of equity in access to tertiary education in Central American countries, a variance decomposition analysis is performed, using a probit regression, to assess how much of the probability of starting postsecondary education is explained by household income, the education of the head of the household and location. If underlying family characteristics have little or no explanatory power in the decision to enroll, the R<sup>2</sup> would be close to zero.

As presented in Table 5, clearly, Central America is still far from reaching equal opportunity for all individuals, although the picture is mixed. Guatemala has the most unequal access to tertiary as household characteristics explain an important part of the probability of reaching tertiary education.

**Table 5: Explaining Access to Tertiary Education**<sup>**1 /2**</sup>

|**Country**|**Circa 2001**|**Circa 2009**|
|---|---|---|
|**Costa Rica**|0.18|0.19|
|**Panama**|0.17|0.18|
|**Guatemala**|0.35|0.43|
|**El Salvador**|0.30|0.23|
|**Honduras**|0.26|0.34|
|**Nicaragua**<br>Source: Authors’ c|0.28<br>alculations based on|0.18<br>several household|

<mark>Source: Authors’ calculations based on several household surveys circa 2001 and circa 2009</mark>

> 1 <mark>Pseudo R</mark> 2 <mark>from probit regressions. Dependent variable is starting post secondary education, independent variables are income and education of head of household and urban location.</mark>

> 2 <mark>Population group 21 to 25 years old.</mark>

Guatemala is followed by Honduras, and in both cases, the inequity in access has increased since 2000. On the other hand, El Salvador and Nicaragua have improved the equity in access to tertiary education. This evolution has allowed Nicaragua to join Costa Rica and Panama, which constitute the countries with the most equitable access to tertiary education in the region.

25
<!-- Start of picture text --> 100 Sa _ a<br>80 OS STN<br>m,aame,SS“ ~.—~ LTSONeA._<br>60 San eae em<br>se> Teea N sc“ N ~~<br>ms ‘ .~ x<br>40 “ ~ SON<br>“TSR<br>20 my<br>~<br>0<br>Begin Prim End Prim Begin Sec End Sec Begin Sup<br>Education attainment<br>——— Costa Rica ——-—-—- Panama<br>----s------ Guatemala —-—-- El Salvador<br>—-—— Honduras ———-- Nicaragua<br><!-- End of picture text -->
primary education and enrollment into secondary education, entrance into tertiary education has remained stable as those gains are lost by the lack of improvement on students completing secondary education.

These transitions are very different for children from households with low educational attainment (Figure 17). The difference between the most educated households (top quintile) and all the others is striking with respect to beginning secondary education, but especially completing secondary education. Even in Costa Rica and Panama, those from educationally disadvantaged households face barriers in completing primary education, but especially in beginning and completing secondary education. In four countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua), for children from the least educated households, there is a problem of completing primary education.

Nevertheless, looking at the gap between the highest and lowest quintiles at each threshold, Panama appears to be the “most equitable” as this gap appears to be the smallest. By the same token, Guatemala is the most unequal. However, another aspect of inequality is manifest in Honduras, where the top quintile is clearly significantly ahead in terms of educational attainment, compared to the rest of the population. Nicaragua, on the other hand, presents a picture of disparities that are distributed across each quintile. These differences will need to be taken into account in designing appropriate policies that target specific households for ensuring completion of secondary education.

At the final transition between ending secondary and beginning tertiary education, it is apparent that there is a big gap between the bottom three (and sometimes four quintiles) and the top two (or one) quintiles. Hence, although much needs to be done before the end of the secondary cycle to enable students from disadvantaged backgrounds to access tertiary education, specific policies to support the transition to tertiary education of the few that do complete secondary education from the bottom three or four quintiles, would help to break the cycle that perpetuates inequality. In short, policies at this level may not need to differentiate between students coming from households that belong to the bottom 60 or 80 percent in terms of education attainment.

Finally, looking at the conditional probabilities of each transition by socio-economic quintile, we see that Central American countries have improved certain transition but, with the exception of Nicaragua, the impact has not been strong enough to increase the access to tertiary education (Table 6). We start first by looking at changes over time (highlighted in different colors). Nicaragua has improved the access to tertiary education of the lowest quintile of its population by greater than 5 percent. To do so, Nicaragua improved primary and secondary education entrance and completion, which however, was attenuated by the decrease in the probability of starting tertiary among those that finished secondary.

27
**Table 6: Conditional Transitions  for Population (21-25 years old) by Key Education Thresholds and Selected Socio-Economic Quintiles**

|**by Ke**|**y Educ**<br>**Pri**|**ation Thres**<br>**mary**|**holds and**<br>**Seco**|**Selected S**<br>**ndary**|**ocio-Econom**<br>**Post-Sec.**|**ic Quintiles**<br>**Memo**<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||||**Unconditional**|
||**Start**|**Finish**<sup>**2**</sup>|**Start**<sup>**2**</sup>|**Finish**<sup>**2**</sup>|**Start**<sup>**2**</sup>|**Post-Secondary**|
||**A**|**B**|**C**|**D**|**E**|**F=A*B*C*D*E**|
|**Costa Rica**|||||||
|Lowest|94%|78%|**63%**|39%|51%|9%|
|Richest|100%|99%|**94%**|**82%**|83%|**63%**|
|Total|98%|**91%**|**76%**|60%|71%|29%|
|**Panama**|||||||
|Lowest|93%|87%|**63%**|44%|38%|8%|
|Richest|100%|99%|97%|87%|72%|61%|
|Total|98%|96%|**86%**|68%|58%|32%|
|**Guatemala**|||||||
|Lowest|**69%**|**48%**|**53%**|32%|29%|2%|
|Richest|98%|89%|86%|61%|50%|23%|
|Total|86%|69%|69%|47%|39%|7%|
|**El Salvador**|||||||
|Lowest|86%|59%|78%|34%|33%|5%|
|Richest|98%|94%|96%|77%|61%|41%|
|Total|93%|78%|89%|53%|44%|15%|
|**Honduras**|||||||
|Lowest|**87%**|**63%**|**37%**|**37%**|**36%**|3%|
|Richest|99%|94%|**83%**|70%|60%|32%|
|Total|94%|82%|**64%**|58%|48%|14%|
|**Nicaragua**|||||||
|Lowest|**86%**|**79%**|**84%**|**50%**|49%|**14%**|
|Richest|97%|**96%**|95%|**77%**|72%|**49%**|
|Total|**95%**|**89%**|**88%**|**63%**|60%|**28%**|
|Note: numbers in<br>percent.<br>2Conditional on a|bold (green<br>chievement|) denote an incre<br>of theprevious th|ase of 5 percent o<br>reshold.|ver 2001 level, h|ighlighted (red) numb|ers indicate a decline in 5|
|Source: Authors’|calculations|based on several h|ousehold survey|s circa 2001 and|circa 2009||

28
In some other countries, gains at some thresholds were neutralized by losses at other thresholds. For example in Costa Rica for the poorest quintile, the probability of starting secondary increased more than 5 percent between 2001 and 2009, but the probability of finishing secondary and starting tertiary decreased by more than 5 percent. As result, the unconditional probability of starting tertiary did not register a major change. Therefore policies to improve access should pay particular attention to retain student once they have made school available to them. This is particularly important as expansions of coverage are likely to bring into the education system poorer students with less exposure to education.

The conditional probabilities reinforce the findings of the earlier analysis but highlight some key thresholds for special attention in order to boost access to tertiary education among the poorest students (lowest quintile in the table). Using a rough rule of thumb, we focus on those probabilities which are about 60 percent or below for the poorest quintiles (implying that more than 40 percent of the students are being “lost” in the previous transition, and hence indicating a heavy loss to the system as a whole). For richer countries, like Costa Rica and Panama, lower probabilities may be more appropriate for priority setting. Nevertheless, using this rule of thumb, in Costa Rica, for example, the priority is clearly in ensuring starting and completion of secondary education. In Panama, the focus needs to be on ensuring the transition to secondary education and completing it, but also on ensuring the transition to higher education for those who complete secondary. In Guatemala, special attention should be given from the primary level onwards at _each_ transition, including enabling those few who complete secondary to enter tertiary education. Hence, a system-wide approach is critical for Guatemala to break the cycle of inequality. For El Salvador, completion of primary, completion of secondary and transition to tertiary education are clearly important. In Honduras, enabling the transition to and completing secondary education are the main priorities. For Nicaragua, the first priority would seem to be ensuring completion of secondary education for those who start it and enabling the transition to tertiary education.

**Table 7: Key Thresholds for Promoting Greater Equity in Access to Tertiary Education**

|**Threshold**|**Costa Rica**|**Panama**|**El Salvador**|**Guatemala**|**Honduras**|**Nicaragua**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Start primary||||xxx|||
|Complete primary|||xxx|xxx|||
|Start secondary|xxx|xxx||xxx|xxx||
|Complete secondary|xxx|xxx|xxx|xxx|xxx|xxx|
|Start tertiary||xxx|xxx|xxx||xxx|

29
<!-- Start of picture text --> TTS AEST, i<br>SSN ~~.<br>80 SSN TN<br>SOON,<br>‘ ms ~ ~<br>60 so ~<br>YN<br>40 a<br>~.<br>~.<br>20<br>0<br>Begin Prim End Prim Begin Sec End Sec Begin Sup<br>Education attainment<br>——— Least educated quintile _--—~—- 2nd quintile<br>s-----e--- 3rd quintile — —- 4th quintile<br>—-—— Most educated quintile<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> 100 SS<br>te, —~ ~<br>80 ~~ aeMen ~, x ~~ \<br>N N “te se \ N\<br>60 NN te, = \ \ \<br>x ee,MN\ \ \<br>40 Sen ON,<br>ww me<br>20 ~~ TN<br>SS Ne<br>0<br>Begin Prim = End Prim Begin Sec End Sec Begin Sup<br>Education attainment<br>—— Least educated quintile © —--—-- 2nd quintile<br>s--------- 3rd quintile —-— - 4th quintile<br>—-—— Most educated quintile<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> 100 =———<br>==~S tors ~~ NX<br>80 ~S =. XN<br>N\, N. ~~<br>60 =< oon \<br>; \. YS \<br>= aN ~ \<br>40 a NG .<br>20 sy<br>0 =<br>Begin Prim = End Prim Begin Sec End Sec Begin Sup<br>Education attainment<br>—— Least educated quintile _—---—-- 2nd quintile<br>s---------- 3rd quintile —-— - 4th quintile<br>—-—— Most educated quintile<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> i<br>ss ee<br>80 So NDR<br>NO<br>a wy \<br>om so \<br>NO, ‘<br>40 Qn,<br>Ny<br>%,<br>20<br>0<br>Begin Prim = End Prim Begin Sec End Sec Begin Sup<br>Education attainment<br>——— Least educated quintile | —---—-—- 2nd quintile<br>s--------- 3rd quintile —-— - 4th quintile<br>—-—— Most educated quintile<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> ee a arate<br>LoS SSS<br>80 SAL S55 ONMN “XN ><<br>TTN SONaN “XN N NN<br>60 SONSoe<br>x SONSSNON<br>40 ~ a<br>SSO<br>NY<br>20<br>0<br>Begin Prim = End Prim Begin Sec End Sec Begin Sup<br>Education attainment<br>—— Least educated quintile _—---—-- 2nd quintile<br>s--------- 3rd quintile —-— - 4th quintile<br>—-—— Most educated quintile<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> 100 xe<br>~ =SR ~<br>80 ssSL me ONIN<br>mse RUN ~~.<br>60 SY TM N ~S<br>‘ a N<br>x Sm ON<br>40 sO,<br>20 =<br>0<br>Begin Prim = End Prim Begin Sec End Sec Begin Sup<br>Education attainment<br>—— Least educated quintile ---—-- 2nd quintile<br>s--------- 3rd quintile —-— - 4th quintile<br>—-—— Most educated quintile<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **7. PUBLIC POLICIES FOR IMPROVING EQUITY IN TERTIARY EDUCATION**

The above analysis highlights the fact that achieving equity in tertiary education is still a distant goal in Central America. Public policy, if it is guided by promoting equity objectives, should aim to address the short-term and long-term constraints that prevent students from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds from reaching and completing tertiary education. In this section, we review three arenas of public policy action: (a) public spending on tertiary education, which can be a powerful tool of redistributive policies, and facilitating entry into tertiary education (b) addressing financial constraints and (c) addressing long-term constraints, including addressing inequalities throughout the educational cycle. We use some of the general pointers for policy development, drawn from the OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, which covered tertiary education policies in 24 countries.<sup>21</sup> The level of public resources going to tertiary education, as percentage of GDP, is relatively high in four countries, including the two richest and the two poorest: Costa Rica (1.5 percent), Panama (1.2 percent), Nicaragua (over 1 percent) and Honduras (about 1 percent). By contrast, El Salvador and Guatemala have traditionally spent less than 0.4 percent of GDP on public tertiary education (Figure 18).<sup>22</sup> Public expenditure on tertiary education in OECD countries represents on average 1.0 percent of GDP.<sup>23</sup> Among the high spenders in tertiary education, Costa Rica and Honduras devote a large share of public resources to the education sector as a whole – 6 percent in the former and 7 percent in the latter.<sup>24</sup> The other countries of Central America spend between 3 and 4 percent of GDP on public education.<sup>25</sup> These shares are low especially for the middle income countries, and reflect the low levels of public spending and revenue collection (Figure 19).

Ánnual per student expenditure in higher education is low, except in Costa Rica. Even in Panama, per student expenditure is only about US $ 3000 (in 2005 US $ PPP); in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, it lies between $ 1000 and $ 2000. With these low levels of spending, the quality of tertiary education is likely to be very low. In Costa Rica, on the other hand, per student spending has been rapidly rising since 2005, going from $ 5500 to $ 7500 in just 4 years, but this rise may not indicative of improvements in quality.<sup>26</sup>

> 21 The findings of this review are presented in Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, published in September 2008. Background reports prepared by 21 countries, Reviews of Tertiary Education in 14 countries and other documents of the review are also available on the OECD website www.oecd.org/edu/tertiary/review.

> 22 Data on public spending on education, as noted in the ICEFI (2010) report, are of variable quality. In particular, there are anomalies in the data for Nicaragua, and differences with figures reported in Ministry of Education reports.

> 23 OECD Education at a Glance 2011.  Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP , by source of fund and level of education (2008)

> 24 The high level of public spending on education in Honduras is largely due to the relatively high wages for school teachers.

> 25 Author’s calculations based on ICEFI, 2010.

> 26 Author’s calculations based on ICEFI, 2010. Faculty-student ratios, a possible measure of quality, have not declined in Costa Rican universities and the rise in per student expenditures may be related to a rise in salaries.

31
<!-- Start of picture text -->
1.6% 3<br>1.4%<br>1.0% pertites, a WTTt a2-.l--°""<br>a we wee, weer” _ ——<br>a ood tee —<br>B 0.8% cal<br>x<br>6%} ee<br>0.4% + i ee<br>_ a el<br>0.2% ey<br>0.0% +> J ra rr<br>2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br>Year<br>—— Costa Rica -==-Panama — - Guatemala<br>—s - ElSalvador —— =Honduras +++++++ Nicaragua<br>4%<br>r+2 -- pecnnntee eeeseeenner<br>e wee Tree, ow Tee, aeeeee<br>=Fj= 30% em ————<br>3Fy a 25% a<br>Ae<br>2<br>3a 15%eS eee ee ee NO lt~—~—<br>& a ~ eo ee ers .<br>PatOo 10% ~ — _—szamTM ee lee ee‘”<br>o<br>x 5% | — =~<br>0% +>. SYS<br>2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br>Year<br>—— Costa Rica ===—=Panama — - Guatemala<br>—as - ElSalvador —— =Honduras +++++++ Nicaragua<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Educacion primariay secundaria<br>18.0<br>16.0<br>0<br>a9 ET—_<br>NN<br>2.0 SS<br>0.0<br>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3B 9 10<br>—— Guatemala —— Honduras ———El Salvador<br>oe Nicaragua eee (Costa Rica eens Panama<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Educacion terciaria<br>50.0<br>45.0<br>40.0<br>35.0<br>30.0<br>25.0<br>20.0<br>15.0<br>10.0<br>5.0<br>0.0<br>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br>——Guatemala ——Honduras —— El Salvador<br>——Nicaragua —=CostaRica —===§Panama<br>CC<br><!-- End of picture text -->
Public spending on primary and secondary education is in general progressive, with the poorer sections of the population benefitting proportionately more. The degree of progressivity is greatest in Costa Rica and Panama, while it is smallest in Honduras. Nevertheless, what is important is not just the quantity but also the quality of the spending that goes to the poor. As was clear from the analysis of transition, many poor students simply fail to complete primary education and enter and complete secondary education.

Another way to measure the redistributive effect of the public expenditure on education is the Reynolds and Smolensky (RS) index, which measures the redistributive effect as the reduction in the Gini coefficient due to public expenditure.<sup>27</sup> This is done by assuming that each individual using the education service receives the same amount of benefit which is equal to the mean public expenditure on that service. For example, if the person attends a public primary school then the per student public expenditure on primary education is assigned to him as extra income. This index is presented in Table 8.

These estimations show that while public spending on primary and secondary education has some redistributive capacity in all the countries, expenditure on tertiary education has virtually no effect. For countries with relatively high Gini coefficients - Panama, Guatemala and Honduras - public spending on primary and secondary education is largely equitable: RS indexes are above 2 points implying a large subsidy to families in lower quintiles. In tertiary education, RS indexes are much closer to zero so public spending does not alter income distribution.<sup>28</sup>

|**Table 8: R**|**edistributiv**<br>|**e capacity**<br>**C**<br>|**of Public Ex**<br>**irca 2008**<br>|**penditure in**<br>|**Education (**<br>|**PEE)**<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Costa Rica**|**Panama**|**Guatemala**|**El Salvador**|**Honduras**|**Nicaragua**|
|||**P**<br>|**rimary and sec**<br>|**ondary educati**<br>|**on**<br>||
|**Ginibefore PEE**|0.510|0.539|0.538|0.475|0.540|0.509|
|**Giniafter PEE**|0.476|0.515|0.515|0.450|0.515|0.497|
|**Difference -RS**<br>**id**|0.011|0.024|0.023|0.026|0.026|0.011|
|**nex**|||**Tertiary **<br>|**education**<br>|||
|**Giniprevious PEE**|0.510|0.539|0.538|0.475|0.540|0.509|
|**Gini after PEE**|0.514|0.538|0.540|0.476|0.544|0.512|
|**Difference –RS**<br>**index **|-0.003|0.000|-0.002|-0.001|-0.003|-0.003|
|Source: ICEFI, 2010|||||||

> 27 Specifically . Where is the Reynolds Smolesky index, the Gini index based on current income reported ( _y_ ) and the Gini index of the current income plus the average expenditure in the public service ( _y+b_ ).

> 28 The above analysis refers only to the generation currently studying and considers only short term benefits (the actual public expenditure).  If those attending and/or completing the tertiary level of education generate further benefits to those in lower quintiles, such as employment generation, larger tax payments or improvements in the education system, long term income inequality could be reduced.

34
Table 9 provides an assessment of where Central American countries stand with respect to policies that may facilitate entry into tertiary education, based on the OECD framework for reviewing public policies towards equity in tertiary education. Nicaragua’s promotion of universities for the Afro-Caribbean population stands out as distinct amongst the Central American countries and may account for the greater equality in access. However, these two universities receive relatively little of public funding. Although information is not readily available for many of the other policies (or they do not exist), they provide the basis for further policy development.

In the short run, a concentrated effort is required to help disadvantaged students who complete secondary to enroll in tertiary, combining financial help with programs to help them prepare for entrance examinations, counseling and social services, along with remedial and extra classes to support them in the first few years of tertiary education, when drop-out rates are high.

# **Overcoming Financial Constraints**

The countries that have higher access in tertiary education, with greater participation of the poor, operate relatively large scholarship programs. Public universities in Costa Rica operate a large number of scholarships at the tertiary level, and this contributes to the relatively large share of poor students who are able to participate; their effectiveness is reduced simply because the pool of poor secondary education completers is so small. Panama has a well-managed system of scholarships run by Scholarships for tertiary education for disadvantaged students run by the _Instituto para la Formación y Aprovechamiento de los Recursos Humanos_ (IFARHU), which receives its revenues from a payroll tax. IFARHU also grants scholarships funded by third parties, mainly the Ministry of Economy and Finance for higher education abroad Similarly, Nicaraguan public universities also offer scholarships, again reflected in the improvement in the transition from secondary to university education.

There seems to be scope for encouraging the use of financial incentives to facilitate the transition from upper secondary to tertiary education. In Panama, where the proportions of students completing upper secondary education are the highest, further targeted programs for encouraging entry into tertiary education would seem appropriate. In Guatemala, where the participation of indigenous students in tertiary education is very low, scholarships are offered by aid agencies and reach a few hundred students. Even though the number of indigenous students who reach upper secondary education is very low, it would seem appropriate to provide extra help to most of these students to enable them to enter tertiary education, in the interest of breaking the deep structural inequalities in the society. Overall, as seen earlier, many students have to work while they are studying, and this may have an impact both on quality and on efficiency and welldesigned programs to enable students from low socio-economic background to complete their studies on time without having to take a job should be considered.

Finally, a major policy issue is the large proportion of poor students who go to private institutions and who receive no support, while the main beneficiary of public subsidies for tertiary education are the richer students. Central American countries currently lack policies and instruments to provide funding for such students, as public funding is provided to the public universities and there are no over-arching governance mechanisms that steer that entire higher education system.

35
# **Overcoming Long-term Constraints**

Addressing long term constraints, especially disadvantages imposed by the education background of household and, in the case of indigenous people, additional barriers of exclusion and language, needs a more multi-pronged approach beyond the use of financial incentives alone. As indicated in the section on school transitions, inequitable access to tertiary education starts with high levels of drop out for poor students during the secondary stage in most countries, and at the primary stage for some countries. This in turn is related to cognitive and non-cognitive attributes that are developed early in the educational process, both within the family and at school. Table 10 assesses how well the Central American countries fare in terms of policies to address these constraints.

An important policy issue is whether public authorities track equity indicators in education. From the available information, Costa Rica performs the best in this regard. At the university level, information on student background is collected and equity indicators are tracked, which provide the basis for providing scholarships. This is partly related to the fact that the Costa Rican public universities are governed by a Council of Rectors, which undertakes the planning and development of the system. Other countries lack even the minimum requirements of such a system. This should be an important area of focus.

A positive trend is that addressing inequality in access in earlier levels of education is increasingly receiving greater attention in Central American countries. Again, Costa Rica has been a leader with a long-standing tradition of scholarships targeted to the poor. In addition, the Rica has recently introduced a large conditional cash transfer (CCT) program for secondary students ( _Avancemos_ ) to encourage students of the poorest quintiles to complete secondary education. An innovative feature of this program is that the size of the transfer increases with the grade level to offset the rising opportunity cost. Panama has a well-managed system of scholarships for primary and secondary students, which has been targeted to disadvantaged students since 2006. There is also a CCT program which promotes primary school attendance, targeting the rural and indigenous population. In 2010, Panama also introduced a universal scholarship for secondary students (conditional on obtaining a minimum grade).

Guatemala and Honduras have recently launched large CCT programs, mainly with a focus on primary education, which should increase the population reaching secondary education. While El Salvador and Nicaragua do not operate CCT programs, they have undertaken far reaching reforms to improve access and upgrade quality of lower secondary education.

Table 9 also lists a number of policies that can help the transition from secondary school to tertiary education. Information is not readily available on a number of countries, but clearly Costa Rica stands out as the country with the best set of policies. In particular, Central American countries can take action on some “quick wins”, such as providing counseling and advisory services in secondary schools on careers and tertiary education options. Central American countries do not have early tracking of students into vocational/ technical education, a positive feature, which can be strengthened by lowering the barriers of mobility between the “academic” and “technical” tracks, and facilitating entry of students enrolled in technical tracks into tertiary education.

36
However, there are some policies that will require greater and sustained effort. Among them, the most important is raising the quality and relevance of the secondary and primary education. Costa Rica is a front runner among Latin American countries, while all other countries, including Panama, fare poorly on international achievement tests. Many countries do not have a common secondary school leaving examination that indicates whether a student has the competencies required for pursuing tertiary education. Apart from improving the quality of the academic programs, another approach is to provide additional educational support, enrichment classes and extra-curricular activities to compensate for the disadvantages of the home background, as exemplified by El Salvador’s proposed Full time School model for lower secondary education. At the primary level, the effort must be to improve quality for all students, something which is possible to do, as the example of Costa Rica shows. A holistic approach, involving targeted policy interventions at several levels and sustained over a period of time, can bring about the break in the structural inequality in tertiary education that has been the hallmark of Central America.

37
# **Table 9: Policies to Facilitate Entry into Tertiary Education**

|**TAKECULTURAL DIVERS **|**ITY INTO ACCOUNT **|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||**Costa Rica**|**Panama**|**El Salvador**|**Guatemal**|**a**<br>**Honduras**|**Nicaragua**|||
|Adapt tertiary programmes to c<br>and adults seeking to upgrade th|ater for both school leavers<br>eir qualifications|No<br>information|No<br>information|No information|No inform|ation<br>No<br>information|No information|||
|Encourage the development of<br>foundations (_e.g._indigenous TE|TEIs with diverse cultural<br>Is)|Does not exist|Does not<br>exist|Does not exist|Does not e|xist<br>Does not<br>exist|Two regional uni<br>Caribbean popul|versities for regio<br>ation, but limited s|ns with high Afro-<br>tate funding|
|Enhance the partnerships betwe<br>the TEIs run by them) and main|en cultural minorities (and<br>stream TEIs|Not applicable|Not<br>applicable|Not applicable|Not applic|able<br>Not<br>applicable|No information|||
|Establish learning centres with<br>|remote links to TEIs and<br>|No<br>|No<br>|No information|University<br>|of San Carlos has<br> <br>No<br>|No information|||
|regional campuses of urban-bas<br> **OPEN UP ENTRANCE PRO**|ed TEIs<br>**CEDURES TO TERTIAR**<br>|information<br>**Y EDUCATION**<br>|information||centres in i|ndigenous areas<br>information<br> <br>||||
||**Costa Rica**|**Panama**||**ElSalvador **||**Guatemala**<br>**Hondu**|**ras**|**Nicaragua**||
|Give TEIs more autonomy<br>over student admissions and<br>encourage them to base<br>admissions on a wide variety<br>of entrance criteria|Universities have autonom<br>to decide on student<br>admissions. Entrance exam<br>are based solely on academ<br>merit|y<br>s<br>ic<br>Universitie<br>to decide o<br>admissions<br>are based s<br>merit|s have autonomy<br>n student<br>. Entrance exams<br>olely on academic|<br>Universities<br>autonomy to<br>student admi<br>Entrance exa<br>solelyon aca|have<br>decide on<br>ssions.<br>ms are based<br>demic merit|Universities have<br>autonomy to decide on<br>student admissions.<br>Entrance exams are based<br>solely on academic merit<br>Univer<br>autono<br>student<br>Entran<br>solely|sities have<br>my to decide on<br>admissions.<br>ce exams are based<br>on academic merit|Universities ha<br>decide on stude<br>Entrance exam<br>academic merit|ve autonomy to<br>nt admissions.<br>s are based solely on<br>|
|Encourage targeted<br>recruitment programmes or<br>the provision of quotas for<br>members of specific under-<br>represented groups|No information|Does not ex|ist|Does not exis|t|Does not exist<br>Does n|ot exist|Does not exist||
|Improve information for<br>students about programmes<br>and transfer possibilities|No information|||||||||
|Develop a system of course<br>credits valid across the<br>tertiary education system<br> **PROVIDE EXTRASUPPOR **|Does not exist<br>**T FOR STUDENTS FROM **|**DISADVANTA**|**GED BACKGR**|**OUNDS**||||||
||||||**Costa Rica**|**Panama**<br>**El Salvador**|**Guatemala**|**Honduras**|**Nicaragua**|
|Consider special incentives for<br>students from these groups in th|TEIs to attract less represente<br>eir studies progression|d groups and to d|evelop initiatives t|o support<br>|Does not exist|||||
|Extend tutoring services for stu|dents with academic difficulti|es|||No information|||||

38
|**Table 10: Policies to A**<br>**TACKLE EQUITY ISSUES**|**ddress L**|**ong Term**|**Constrain**|**ts**|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Costa Rica**||**Panama**|||**El Salvador**|**Guatemala**|**Honduras**||**Nicaragua**|
|Assess where equity problems<br>arise through systematic collection<br>of data|Data collection<br>by CONARE (<br>Rectors of pub<br>and individual|and analysis<br>Council of<br>lic universities)<br>universities.|No informatio|n||Does not<br>exist|Does not exist|Does not exis|t|Does not exist|
|Use an empirical performance<br>indicator system to monitor<br>access, participation, retention and<br>success of groups identified as<br>disadvantaged for the equity<br>framework|No systematic<br>system for syst<br>though student<br>data are tracke<br>universities|information<br>em as whole,<br>background<br>d by individual|Does not exis|t||Does not<br>exist|Does not exist|Does not exis|t|Does not exist|
|Address inequality of access to<br>tertiary education by intervening<br>at early educational levels|**CCT program**<br>**education (**_Av_<br>introduced in 2<br>coverage, to im<br>enrollment, att<br>completion rat<br>education. Pro<br>incorporates in<br>features, includ<br>transfers in hig<br>2009, over 125<br>covered (about<br>enrollment).<br>**Scholarships f**<br>**aged 5-19** **_(Fo_**<br>**_de becas_**), sinc<br>covers tuition,<br>About 70,000 c<br> **Nutrition and**<br>**Childhood Pr**|**i**n**secondary**<br>_ancemos)_ <br>006 with large<br>prove<br>endance and<br>es of secondary<br>gram<br>novative<br>ing differential<br>her grades. In<br>,000 students<br>40% of<br>**or children**<br>**_ndo nacional_**<br>e 1997 –<br>transport etc.<br>overed<br>**Early**<br>**ograms –**|**A universal s**<br>launched in 2<br>**public school**<br>low fee), cond<br>specified acad<br>expected to re<br>**Large schola**<br>**secondary an**<br>financed main<br>and administe<br>Aprovechami<br>(IFARHU). S<br>were increasi<br>students. Abo<br>**CCT progra**<br>households in<br>in 2005.<br>**ECD and pre**<br>**large coverag**<br>indigenous ar|**cholarship program**( <br>010 (**in all** **primary an**<br>**s, and private schools**<br>itional on achieving a<br>emic achievement. Co<br>ach 800,000 pupils in<br>**rship program for pr**<br>**d higher education st**<br>ly by Seguro Educativ<br>red by Instituto para la<br>ento de los Recursos H<br>tarting in 2006, these s<br>ngly targeted to disadv<br>ut 64,000 beneficiaries<br>**m for primary educat**<br>rural and indigenous a<br>**-school education pr**<br>**e**. Recently rapid expa<br>eas through informal E|_Beca Universal)_<br>**d secondary**<br>**with an**annual<br>minimum<br>verage is<br>2012.<br>**imary,**<br>**udents**,<br>o, a payroll tax ,<br>Formación y<br>umanos<br>cholarships<br>antaged<br>in 2008.<br>**ion**for poorest<br>reas, introduced<br>**ograms have**<br>nsion in<br>CD programs|**Inclusive**<br>**Full Time**<br>**School**<br>**Mode**l in<br>order to raise<br>**secondary**<br>**school**<br>**completion**<br>to be<br>launched in<br>2013, which<br>extends the<br>school day<br>and provides<br>an enriched<br>curriculum.<br>**Pre-school**<br>**education**<br>**being**<br>**expanded**|**CCT Program (**_Mi_<br>_Familia Progresa_**)**<br>**for promoting**<br>**primary education**<br>attendance, launched<br>in 2008. Rapid<br>expansion by 2010 to<br>cover 600,000<br>households (1.5<br>million<br>beneficiaries), but<br>may be scaled back<br>in 2012.<br>Scholarship program<br>at**secondary level**<br>(_Becas Solidarias_)<br>has limited coverage.<br>Very limited<br>coverage of ECD<br>programs.|<br>CCT Program<br>_10000)_launc<br>for promoting<br>**education**att<br>Large covera<br>200,000 hous<br>expected to c<br>in a few years<br>The Ministry<br>offers scholar<br>secondary ed<br>which in gene<br>students in m<br>poverty (third<br>quintile) sinc<br>children do n<br>educational le<br>Very limited<br>ECD program<br>high levels of|(_Bono_<br>hed in 2010<br> **primary**<br>endance.<br>ge, currently<br>eholds<br>over 600,000<br>.<br>of Education<br>ships for<br>ucation,<br>ral favors<br>oderate<br>income<br>e the poorest<br>ot reach this<br>vel.<br>coverage of<br>s, despite<br>growth|Since 2007, strong<br>focus on**primary**<br>**completion**with<br>expansion of schools,<br>provision of supplies.<br>In 2008, an<br>umbrella program,<br>called AMOR, aims<br>to provide<br>interventions in early<br>childhood education,<br>nutrition and health<br>to the most<br>vulnerable children.<br>From 2012,<br>emphasis on<br>promoting**pre-**<br>**school education**and<br>expanding coverage<br>of**lower secondary.**|
|**SMOOTH TRANSITIONS FROM**|covers about 1<br>**SCHOOL TO**|25,000<br>**TERTIARY ED**|<br>**UCATION**|||||retardation an|d stunting.||
|||**Costa Rica**||**Panama**|**ElSalvador **||**Gua**|**temala**|**Honduras**|**Nicaragua**|
|Set up a network of career guidance<br>school level with sufficient and well-|services at the<br>trained staff|Academic an<br>guidance pro<br>lowersecond|d career<br>vided from<br>ary stage|No information|No information||No i|nformation|No<br>information|No information|
|Promote exchanges between schools<br>education institutions (TEIs) whereb<br>children are mentored by tertiary stu|and tertiary<br>y school<br>dents|No informati|on|No information|No information||No i|nformation|No<br>information|<br>No information|
|Expand tracks from vocational upper<br>education to tertiary education|secondary|Entry allowed<br>education fro<br>technical trac|into tertiary<br>m vocational/<br>ks|No information|Limited entry||Limi|ted entry|Limited<br>entry|Limited entry|

39
|Ensure that school children are not tracked away<br>from tertiary education paths at an early age|Technical/ vocational begins<br>in grade 10|Technical/<br>vocational begins<br>in grade 10|Technical/ vocational begins in grade 10|Technical/<br>vocational begins in<br>grade 10|Technical/<br>vocational<br>begins in|Technical/<br>vocational begins<br>in grade 10|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Lower barriers between the vocational and academic<br>tracks within secondary school|Some mobility|Some mobility|High barriers|High barriers|High barriers|High barriers|
|Ensure that the number and type of study places in<br>tertiary education accommodate diverse demand|No information|No information|No information|No information|No<br>information|No information|
|Ensure that secondary curricula and assessment<br>provide a good basis for successful tertiary study|PISA (2009) scores indicate<br>that Costa Rica is highest<br>performer in LAC, but<br>below OECD countries.<br>High stakes public<br>secondary school leaving<br>examination, which many<br>students fail.|Panama scored<br>approximately 150<br>points below the<br>OECD average on<br>PISA.<br>No common<br>secondary school<br>leaving<br>examination|Secondary education curriculum and pedagogic<br>methods being modernized as part of Full Time<br>School Model<br>Since 2005, all secondary school students have<br>to pass an exam( Prueba de Aptitudes y<br>Aprendizaje para Egresados de Educación<br>Media - PAES). Until 2004, all secondary<br>students had to take it to graduate but there were<br>no minimum passing grades. Scores are also<br>used as admission criteria for some universities|Currently, no<br>initiatives on<br>secondary education<br>A common<br>secondary school<br>leaving examination<br>exists, but there are<br>no minimum<br>passing grades.|Currently, no<br>initiatives on<br>secondary<br>education<br>No common<br>secondary<br>school<br>leaving<br>examination|From 2013,<br>teacher<br>improvement and<br>new textbooks for<br>lower secondary<br>education<br>No common<br>secondary school<br>leaving<br>examination|

40