Teacher Compensation Inequities in Central American Rural Schools

• In Event: Teaching in diversity

Proposal

Historically, Honduras has struggled to provide educational access to marginalized populations, combat school dropout, and equalize the performance gap across the K-12 spectrum (Adelman & Székely, 2017). In 2014, the average schooling of Honduras’ population was 6.2 years, placing them far from meeting their commitment to the UNESCO Education for All initiative goal of providing quality basic education for all children, youth, and adults by 2015 (OECD, 2016; Hanushek, Lavy, & Hitomi, 2008). Following neo-liberal and decentralization trends across Central America in the 1990’s, community school initiatives emerged as a response to expanding educational access to rural and urban areas (Torres & Puiggrós, 1995). These schools are seen to play a key role in school-based management reforms by promoting parental participation as well as local knowledge and capacity (Di Gropello & Marshall, 2011).
In the Honduran community school program, Programa Hondureño de Educación Comunitaria (PROHECO), teachers are hired, paid, and supervised by elected, community-led school councils. These Asociaciónes Educativas Comunitarias are legal entities that operate on the government's behalf responsible for school maintenance and improvement. According to the Honduran Secretary of Education, there are 3,786 PROHECO educational centers representing 10.8% of schools across the nation (Secretaría de Educación de Honduras, 2018). Research has shown that PROHECO schools have increased academic achievement and reduced school closures, no small feat in regions with upwards of 20 days of lost school days due to “unofficial closings” (Bedi & Marshall, 2002; Di Gropello & Marshall, 2011). However, these gains may be offset by systematic obstacles: low teacher qualifications, high turnover, and major budgetary constraints (Di Gropello & Marshall, 2011).
We posit that differences in teacher compensation are significant factors in school quality due to the stark salary gap between the PROHECO system and the government public system. In 2014, PROHECO teachers received $2431/year compared to the $3018/year salary of government school teachers--the largest compensation differential in community school programs across Central America. In order to study and analyze the differences in teacher quality and experiences in PROHECO schools, in July, 2018 the non-profit Students Helping Students conducted a survey with 12 rural schools on teacher compensation, teacher experience, and beliefs. We draw our data from 63 responses, corresponding to 40 PROHECO school teachers and 24 government school teachers.
Our analyses run in R illustrate key understandings of the compensation inequities between PROHECO and government school teachers. Chi-squared tests measuring the relationship between being PROHECO and lateness of salary showed that there appears to be a statistically significant relationship between how common it was that their salary was late (p<0.01) as well as how long on average they receive their salary late (p<0.01). Where 45% of PROHECO teachers indicated that their salary is “always or almost always” late, government school teachers only selected this option 8% of the time, indicated that it is “sometimes” late 70% of the time. The options for average lateness ranged from “never late or almost never,” to delayed “four months or more.” Where only 9% of government teachers indicated that their salary on average was “two weeks to one month” late with no individuals indicating longer delays, PROHECO teacher responses ranged with 8% selecting this option, and 75% distributed equally between “one to two month,” “two months to four months,” and “four months or more.” However, a chi-squared test of independence showed that there does not appear to be a statistically significant relationship between being PROHECO and concern with living conditions with 78% of government and 85% of PROHECO teachers both indicating that they “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement that “receiving a late salary makes me concerned for my living conditions.”
These findings present an empirical puzzle. Why are PROHECO school teachers paid later than that of government school teachers? How does this tardiness affect teacher morale and performance? Why might teachers with large compensation inequities have similar views on the impact these delays have on their lives? Based on our fieldwork, and political participation theories (McAdams et al., 2001; Sojourner, 2013; Alhquist and Levi, 2013 ) we suggest that differential treatment between PROHECO and government teachers are due to a vicious cycle of political marginalization, exacerbated by uncertainties concerning job security. PROHECO school teachers are not afforded political representation in the form of unions, are oftentimes unaffiliated with the ruling party in the government, have little proximity to the loci of power, and their very existence is an affront to the government, demonstrating the government’s inability to provide adequate and basic education to its rural communities. Political activity in the form of protest, voting, and unionization to demand for reform is also less for PROHECO teachers--activities that have been shown to be favorable to improving workforce treatment and opportunities (Murillo, 1999; Besley and Burgess, 2002; Bjorkman and Svensson, 2009; Kuran, 1991; Rustin, 1966; Branch and Mampilly, 2015; Wasserstrom, 1994). Inherent to the PROHECO structure, teachers are uncontracted or temporarily contracted and experience an employment limbo, where termination is always present. Such conditions may deter PROHECO teachers from engaging politically, compared to their government school counterparts. In totality, we work to show that political marginalization leads to differential treatment that privileges government school teachers at the expense of PROHECO schools. In turn, occupational uncertainties exacerbate this political marginalization which perpetuates the differential treatment and prevents meaningful reform.
Historically, “expanding access to education has been seen as a primary means for reducing the incidence of poverty and improving living conditions in Central America” and other regions around the world (Honeyman, 2010). However, as the case of Honduras has shown, focusing on access, may result in insufficient attention being paid to other factors that contribute to school quality--including teacher quality, satisfaction, and the distribution of resources. In addition, unpacking the differences between the PROHECO and government systems highlights the inequity facing PROHECO teachers in terms of political representation and compensation. Understanding these differences and how they affect teachers experiences is critical as they contribute to the educational disparities provided to some of the country’s most vulnerable students.

Authors

• Nhat-Dang Do, University of California, San Diego

• Maxie Gluckman, University of California, San Diego