160 likes | 226 Views
Qualitative evaluation, Mexico ’ s CCT. CLEAR Global Forum, Mexico City 2013. Mexico ’ s CCT in 2007. 5 million households , 7 million scholarships Children who started in 3rd grade are 20 years old Becoming adults : education , labor, family formation. Main goals.
E N D
Qualitative evaluation, Mexico’s CCT CLEAR Global Forum, Mexico City 2013
Mexico’s CCT in 2007 • 5 millionhouseholds, 7 millionscholarships • Childrenwhostarted in 3rd grade are 20 yearsold • Becomingadults: education, labor, familyformation
Maingoals • Differential impact: indigenous vs. Non-indigenous • Long term (10 years) allows potentially large differences between those in program and those who never joined it • Focus on children experiencing maximum exposure • Assess services and possible discrimination • Follow chain of service / command
Samplingtechnique • 3 communities in eachstate • 4 states • Ethniccoexistenceto control servicequality • 48 families in eachstate • Trackhistory in program • Chooseaccordingto SE levelIN 1997
Time • 14 weeks in communities • Long fieldworkallowedinterviewingmigrantsreturningforfestivitiesorotherevents
Intermediate and final reports • State monographs Temas: • Health • Education • Targeting • Impact
Impacton labor participation, 10 yearson Methodological aspects • Analytical sample consists of in-depth case studies of each household (182) and scholarship receiver • Observe migrant and non-migrant performance (high-schooled leave) • Thus, the most successful as well as those not moving. • Without migrants, no evidence of impact.
Studying as main activity of youths Youths 15-25 • Indigenous males: 26.6% (vs. 12.1% non-beneficiaries) • Indigenous women: 28% (7.4) • Non indigenous women: 32.7% (10.7%)
Education: differential impact (I) • Higher level of supply (more schools) in Oaxaca and Chiapas strengthen impact • Chihuahua and Sonora: highly dispersed population, lower impact
Education: differential impact (II) • More impact in So states, especially among women and indigenous groups. Interethnic and gender gap seems to disappear • Northern states: less impacts. Interethnic gap persists, but narrower.
Educational impact (791 individuals; 448 offspring 15-25) Difference in intergenerational schooling gap: • Two years more schooling • 2.9 more years among indigenous males (1 among non-indigenous) • 3.4 years among indigenous women (-0.3 among non-indigenous women)
Education: Total impact? • Many still in school, therefore impact not yet known • 26.6% indigenous men • 28% indigenous women • 32.7% non-indigenous women • Emigration itself should enhance their earning potential
Education: the problem with quality • The CCT reduces schooling gaps, but huge differences remain in schooling quality. • Particularly severe gaps between indigenous – non indigenous schools, and “telesecundarias” vs. Standard high schools.
Educational quality: a look at inside the schools (I) • Problems: • Absent teachers • Programs not covered • Impossibletoassessstudentsaccordingtonationalnorms
Educational quality (II) • Vivious circle reproduces schooling for indigenous children as a segregated system • Buteven so itisnotadaptedtoindigenousneeds