Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T21:33:57.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

REPRODUCING INEQUALITY? ELITE-BIASED POLICY AND THE RURAL–URBAN EDUCATIONAL GAP IN COLOMBIA AND ITS REGIONS, 1920-2019

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2023

Irina España-Eljaiek*
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Colombiaa
Daniela Mejía
Affiliation:
Universidad EAFITb
Nohemí Samara Gaviria Melendez
Affiliation:
Universidad EAFITc
*
Corresponding author: Irina España-Eljaiek; Email: iespanae@unal.edu.co
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Latin America, Colombia stands out for its more significant and persistent rural–urban educational performance gaps. This paper studies the evolution of this under-performance of Colombian rural areas by conducting a long-term descriptive analysis of a new dataset. The results suggest that the role of the national government is a source of these educational inequalities because rural education was introduced late and deficiently. That is, the national government delayed the provision of education to rural areas. Moreover, even when implemented, these rural educational initiatives proved deficient due to their lack of funds, lower quality, curricula detached from the rural context and a design that amplified regional disparities, thus producing and maintaining significant and persistent rural–urban gaps in education.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Colombia, en Latinoamérica, es un país caracterizado por grandes y persistentes brechas entre el desempeño de la educación urbana y rural. Este documento estudia la evolución en el largo plazo de esas desigualdades a través del análisis descriptivo de una nueva base de datos. Los resultados revelan que el rol del gobierno nacional es una fuente de estas desigualdades educativas. Esto es, el gobierno nacional ha implementado sistemáticamente una educación en áreas rurales tardía y con deficiencias. Es decir, el gobierno retrasó la provisión de educación rural. Además, aun cuando el gobierno nacional implementó iniciativas, estas resultaron deficientes debido a contenidos descontextualizados, presupuestos escasos, baja calidad y un diseño que amplificó las desigualdades regionales, produciendo y manteniendo amplias y persistentes brechas en educación rural.

Information

Type
Articles/Artículos
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Instituto Figuerola de Historia y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Figure 0

FIGURE 1 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN ILLITERACY RATES IN COLOMBIA AND THE LATIN AMERICAN AVERAGE.Source: See text.

Figure 1

MAP 1 COLOMBIA.

Figure 2

FIGURE 2 EDUCATIONAL SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NATIONAL SPENDING AND PRIMARY GERs 1920-2018.Source: MEN, Ramírez and Tellez (2007) and World Bank.Note: School population aged 7-14. Calculated enrolment rates are reasonably consistent with those in Ramírez-Giraldo and Téllez-Corredor (2007).

Figure 3

TABLE 1 ENROLMENT RATIOS IN PRIMARY SCHOOLING 1920-1990 AND PISA TEST RESULTS 2006-2018

Figure 4

FIGURE 3 PRIMARY GERs 1926-2019.Source: See text.

Figure 5

FIGURE 4 PUPIL–TEACHER RATIOS 1933-2019.Source: See text.

Figure 6

FIGURE 5 PRIMARY SCHOOLS PER 1,000 SCHOOLING-AGE POPULATION (7-14) 1920-2019.Source: See text.

Figure 7

FIGURE 6 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN GERs 1928-2019.Source: See text.

Figure 8

FIGURE 7 PRIMARY URBAN AND RURAL DROPOUT RATES BY GRADE 1943-1998.Source: See text.Note: Negative dropout rates indicate the greater capacity of the urban educational system to incorporate students after the economic crisis of 1999 (Baldión Waldrón et al. 2000).

Figure 9

FIGURE 8 RATIO OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT IN PRIMARY EDUCATION TO HIGHER EDUCATION.Source: Educational reports 1941, 1951, 1960, 1972, DNP (1991), DANE, Niño (1998) and Ruiz et al. (2008).Note: BL: Linder's based line of 50 per cent.

Figure 10

FIGURE 9 SHARE OF URBAN AND RURAL TEACHERS BY QUALIFICATION 1943-1983.Source: See text.

Figure 11

FIGURE 10 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT OF THE STANDARDISED NATIONAL TESTS SABER 3° IN LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 2012-2016.Source: ICFES (2017).

Figure 12

FIGURE 11 GERs 1928-2019.Source: See text.

Figure 13

MAP 2 AVERAGE SCORE OF RURAL PUPILS IN THE STANDARDISED NATIONAL TESTS SABER 3° in 2017.Source: Data provided by ICFES.

Supplementary material: File

España-Eljaiek et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 896.8 KB