Delivering Quality Services to All in Alentejo

4. Forward-looking planning for the provision of basic education

Introduction

In 2005, an ambitious school consolidation reform in Portugal aimed to address the school network’s inefficiency and strong regional inequalities. The reform accomplished the goal of reducing the number of redundant schools – mostly located in rural areas – and increase efficiency. While school consolidation is efficiency-enhancing, it may lead to increased school transportation times and costs in remote and sparsely populated areas.

School transportation is one of the main concerns of Alentejo rural inhabitants, especially for young children and those living in the lower part of Alentejo. Students face the challenges of long travel distances and significant time of travel, of over an hour in many cases, leading them to wake up at early hours of the morning. This negatively affects their learning experience and represents a serious educational equity problem.

At the same time, the issue of access to school varies with the level of local capacity to deal with the issue, so large inequalities in access across Alentejo are linked not only to geographical and demographic differences but also by the way local transport is organised. As explained in previous chapters, Portugal has a partial decentralisation model that has resulted in a mixed responsibility model, where the national government is mostly responsible for the managing of the school network and the teaching body, and municipalities are responsible for the provision and financing of school transport.

This chapter analyses the trade-off between cost-efficiency, access, and quality faced by rural municipalities in Alentejo. The first section discusses the main features of the national and regional educational system, including recent decentralisation reforms. The second section analyses cost, access and quality statistics for Alentejo at different levels of aggregation (TL3, municipality and degree of urbanisation), including foresight analysis based on simulated placement of schools. Finally, the last section presents seven policy recommendations for Alentejo’s consideration, summarised in the following box.

Recommendations on forward-looking planning for the provision of basic education

The current chapter suggests recommendations on the provision of basic education detailed in the Recommendations section:

Taking into account the effects of demographic change is necessary to bridge the quality and access gaps and improve the restructuring and planning of the school network

• Design a specific strategy to bridge quality and access gaps in lagging and remote rural municipalities

• Use educational charters to coordinate actions among neighbouring municipalities

• Encourage multi-level cooperation towards innovative models including service co-location, and plan strategically the location of new schools based on future demand projections

Achieving better quality education also requires improving the geographic mobility of teachers while increasing within school efficiency

• Revise the national model of teaching recruitment to include the participation of municipalities and regional authorities in the process

• Enhance geographic mobility of teachers (especially young ones)

Increased efforts are needed to bridge the digital divide and enhance the digitalisation of public services to overcome the challenges of school transport

• Further develop transport on demand solutions

• Increase cooperation between municipalities for the provision of transport

• Create a committee of volunteer teachers at the regional level to support teachers from rural communities with the most difficulties in their adaptation and training process

• Support networks bringing together employees from digital sectors and teachers

Establishing a strategy for student accommodation could contribute to solve the challenges of school transport

• Support the accommodation of students over 16 years of age during school days

• Restructure the network of student residences in order to better match supply with demand efficiently

Main features of the national and regional education system

The Portuguese educational system has undergone several reforms in the past decades, mostly related to the clustering of small schools, the decentralisation of education responsibilities from the national government to municipalities or its digitalisation. This section discusses the main features of the national education system and the trends in students, teachers and schools in Alentejo in the last decade.

National system

The basic compulsory education system in Portugal comprises 12 years of education between the ages of 6 and 18 (or completion of secondary education). The compulsory school network is organised in two levels: basic education (1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd cycle) and secondary education1The Ministry of Education is responsible for managing the public school network at all levels (pre-school to secondary education).

Since the 2005 reform, the school network is organised into school clusters of an average of 4-7 schools composed of pre-school establishments plus one or more teaching levels and cycles with a common pedagogical project, covering 98% of all primary, lower secondary and upper secondary public schools (Liebowitz et al., 2018[1]). Within a decade, the 2005 consolidation reform resulted in the closure of 47% of the country’s public schools (5 600 schools). In parallel, municipalities also participated in the reorganization of 1^st cycle school network, leading to the closure of thousands of schools (Liebowitz et al., 2018[2]). The drop in the number of public schools and kindergartens was especially pronounced in the period 2010-2015 (8 351 to 5 834 schools) and slowed down afterwards to reach 5 373 schools in 2020/21.

School clusters have their own administration and management bodies and retain some autonomy in pedagogy and curriculum management under the guidelines of the Ministry of Education. The 2016 National Programme for the Promotion of School Success (Programa Nacional de Promoção do Sucesso Escolar - PNPSE) (PNPSE/ DGE, 2019[3]) pursued a territorial, bottom-up and co-responsibility approach of the programme to decentralise competences to municipalities (equipment, supporting services, extracurricular activities) and fostering of partnerships between schools and local entities (bookshops, sports clubs, health centres, etc.) (Diário da República, 2016[4]).

Two recent decrees aimed at extending the autonomy of school clusters and promote decentralisation by assigning responsibilities to municipalities regarding investment, equipment and the maintenance of school buildings, the provision of meals in establishments and management of non-teaching staff, social support programmes, prevention of school failure and early leaving projects, among others.2 However, decisions related to teaching staff, such as hiring or firing and compensation, remain the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Education.

The partial decentralisation of education services also means that decisions on schools opening or closures are coordinated between national and local authorities. Specifically, the national government adjusts the public school network every year based on proposals from municipalities and a diagnosis of the network carried out by the regional education authorities that includes the expected number of students in each school. A previous directive from 2010 that based school closures on an absolute threshold (21 students) has been replaced by consideration for closure based on the number of students in pre-schooling (5 children) or primary schools (10 children) if there is another school in a given perimeter (5 km for pre-schooling and 10 km for primary).

While school closures are the main competence of the Ministry of Education, support for travel costs including for students affected by school closures is a competence of municipalities (except in the case of special needs students which are covered by national authorities).3

Finally, Portugal has launched several strategies and initiatives in recent years to accelerate the digitalisation of its education system and to promote distance learning (Box 4.1). The various reforms have mainly focused on improving Internet connectivity, digital resources and technological equipment in schools, as well as strengthening the digital skills of students, teachers and parents.

Box 4.1. The digitalisation of educational services in Portugal

The 2020 Action Plan for Digital Transition called “Portugal Digital” includes the Digitalisation Program for Schools that aims to improve the equipment, resources, and connectivity in Portugal’s schools. The programme seeks to stimulate creativity and innovation through digitalisation in the teaching-learning process and to provide quality distance learning and online collaborative work. It also involves a digital training plan for teachers to ensure the acquisition of the necessary skills for teaching in the new digital context, with the objective to reach 100% of teachers with digital skills by 2023 (Government of Portugal, 2020[5]). Teachers can evaluate their level of digital competence through the European online self-assessment tool (TET-SAT), which is available in all Portugal’s schools (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019[6]). “Portugal Digital” also includes a plan on interactive digital educational resources, with a pilot project on the use of digital textbooks (Projeto-Piloto de Desmaterialização de Manuais Escolares).

In parallel, the 2017 National Digital Skills Initiative 2030 (or “Portugal INCoDe.2030”) promotes digital skills among teachers and students in a timeframe that goes from 2018 until 2030. This initiative includes the training of teacher trainers who will subsequently develop the digital skills of the approximately 100 000 primary and secondary school teachers in the Portuguese educational system. The goal of these "Digital Ambassadors" is also to boost the implementation of local digital transition plans from the Training Centres (Centros de Formação de Associação de Escolas). Through “Portugal INCoDe.2030”, the country has adopted a new and progressive curriculum framework introducing Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and digital competences in all basic stages of education. Teaching digital skills is cross-curricular in lower primary education (grades 1-4) while in upper primary (grades 5-6) and lower secondary education, ICT is a compulsory separate subject. In upper secondary education, ICT is an optional separate subject. The introduction of this new subject has been done progressively over several phases: in the 2018-2019 school year, the reform took place only in the first years of each cycle (grades 1, 5 and 7); in the 2019-2020 school year, the reform was gradually extended to grades 2, 6 and 8; in 2020-2021, to grades 3 and 9; and in 2021-2022, to grade 4.

Finally, the Ministry of Education has launched many other initiatives to strengthen the digitalisation of education, including some to improve technological equipment in classrooms (Operação Computadores na Sala de Aula; Operação Escola Interativa; Kit Tecnológico nas Escolas Secundárias), to centralise information on the education and training offer in Portugal (Portal Oferta Formativa), or to improve parents' technology skills (Academia Digital para Pais). Regarding this last initiative, the Digital Academy Programme for Parents gives the opportunity to parents or guardians of 1^st and 2^nd cycle children from Educational Territories of Priority Intervention Programme (TEIP) schools to attend training courses that promote digital skills. In Alentejo, the programme has been developed in six school clusters TEIP (Direção-Geral da Educação, n.d.[7]).

Source: (Government of Portugal, 2020[5]), Plano de Ação para a Transição Digital de Portugal, https://www.portugal.gov.pt/gc22/portugal-digital/plano-de-acao-para-a-transicao-digital-pdf.aspx ; (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019[6]), Digital Education at School in Europe, Eurydice Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/sites/default/files/en_digital_education_n.pdf ; (Direção-Geral da Educação, n.d.[7]), Academia Digital para Pais, https://www.dge.mec.pt/academia-digital-para-pais

Educational system in Alentejo

While the number of primary school students decreased between 2009 and 2019, both teachers and schools decreased at a faster pace as a result of the consolidation process (Table 4.1). Within Alentejo, Alentejo Litoral had the largest difference between student and school change rates (10 percentage points), followed by Lezíria do Tejo (9 percentage points). In secondary education, the rate of decrease of teachers and schools was slower than the decrease in the number of students, as expected from the higher specialisation in the education offer in upper higher education and the larger size of secondary schools.

Even after school consolidation, in 2019 all municipalities in Alentejo had at least one primary and one lower secondary school. Out of 58 municipalities, 8 had only one primary school and 28 had only one lower secondary school, 4 more than in 2009. Upper secondary provision is more concentrated in space as a result of previous consolidation: in 2019, 10 municipalities did not have an upper secondary school, up from 9 municipalities in 2009.

The number of primary schools decreased in 47 out of 58 municipalities in 2009-2019, with changes ranging from 1 to 51 less schools. A substantial part of the consolidation of the school network involved small schools in rural areas. In Alentejo, the number of schools with less than 21 students dropped from around 100 before 2014 to around 30, with a few cases of municipalities with more than one small school, including Santiago do Cacém with 4 small schools, Évora with 3, and Almodôvar, Alcácer do Sal, Serpa, Elvas and Montemor-o-Novo with 2 schools each.

Table 4.1. Evolution on number of schools, students and teachers in Alentejo

2009-2019

	2009	2019	Change	2009	2019	Change
	Primary			Secondary
	Schools
Alentejo Litoral	85	67	-21%	28	27	-4%
Baixo Alentejo	115	90	-22%	48	45	-6%
Lezíria do Tejo	187	136	-27%	52	53	2%
Alto Alentejo	99	76	-23%	40	35	-13%
Alentejo Central	141	101	-28%	45	44	-2%
Total Alentejo	627	470	-25%	213	204	-4%
	Students
Alentejo Litoral	5 861	5 234	-11%	8 810	5 947	-32%
Baixo Alentejo	8 486	7 057	-17%	12 687	8 202	-35%
Lezíria do Tejo	17 103	13 913	-19%	20 800	16 370	-21%
Alto Alentejo	7 585	5 869	-23%	11 025	7 227	-34%
Alentejo Central	10 964	8 531	-22%	16 869	10 515	-38%
Total Alentejo	49 999	40 604	-19%	70 191	48 261	-31%
	Teachers
Alentejo Litoral	576	482	-16%	814	612	-25%
Baixo Alentejo	869	713	-18%	1 107	859	-22%
Lezíria do Tejo	1 537	1 219	-21%	1 812	1 630	-10%
Alto Alentejo	766	628	-18%	1 064	902	-15%
Alentejo Central	1 048	794	-24%	1 512	1 230	-19%
Total Alentejo	4 796	3 836	-20%	6 309	5 233	-17%

Source: (PORTDATA, 2021[8]).

Cost, access and quality of education in Alentejo

The provision of educational services in rural areas involves a trade-off between cost-efficiency, quality and access (OECD, 2021[9]). In Alentejo, these trade-offs are particularly evident in sparsely populated, small and remote municipalities that face at the same time high costs, long distances and lower quality. This section evaluates the status of each dimension based on national statistics and cost and access estimates. It offers a comparative picture across TL3 regions, municipalities and degrees of urbanisation in Alentejo to assess the level of territorial inequalities. The section finalises with a foresight analysis based on different policy scenarios with a 2035 horizon.

Alentejo has both top and bottom performing regions in education quality

Regarding quality, PISA 2018 test results show strong variations within Alentejo. While Alentejo Central consistently performs above the national average across TL3 regions in both scores, Alto and Baixo Alentejo have the lowest scores. Moreover, while both regions have smaller shares of top performers and larger shares of low performers, these shares are in line with national averages in Alentejo Central. Analysis at the national level has also shown a rural-urban gap in performance, which nevertheless disappears after controlling for socio-economic status of the students (OECD, 2021[9]).

Table 4.2. Student performance means by TL3 region in Alentejo

PISA 2018 test

	PISA reading score average (s.d. in parenthesis)	PISA maths score average (s.d. in parenthesis)	PISA science score average (s.d. in parenthesis)	Top performers in science (%)	Low performers in science (%)
Alentejo Litoral	462 (11,1)	464 (13,8)	463 (11,8)	3.5	28.2
Lezíria do Tejo	479 (10,1)	478 (9,4)	483 (11,7)	4.4	25
Alto Alentejo	446 (22,9)	444 (17,7)	450 (17,1)	2.1	33.9
Alentejo Central	492 (12,7)	497 (13,8)	495 (13,6)	5.6	19.7
Baixo Alentejo	448 (14,8)	451 (12,0)	443 (13,2)	3.1	40.6
Portugal	492 (2,4)	492 (2,7)	492 (2,8)	5.6	19.6

Note: s.d. = standard deviation

Source: (Instituto de Avaliação Educativa IP, 2019[10]) and (OECD, 2020[11])

Portugal has long struggled with another indicator of education quality: retention and dropout rates.4 The country made substantial progress over the last decade to reduce its high share of early school leavers and Alentejo was not the exception. As Table 4.3 shows, the region had retention and dropout rates close to the national average in 2019. Additionally, all TL3 regions managed to reduce retention and dropout rates between 2009-2019, even substantially in the case of high initial rates in the 2^nd and 3^rd cycles of basic education (i.e., in the 10-14 age range). However, the gap with respect to the regional average for the 3^rd cycle widened in Alentejo Central and especially Baixo Alentejo, as both regions failed to improve their retention and dropout rates at the same pace as other regions.

Table 4.3. Retention and dropout rates in basic education by TL3 regions in Alentejo

Percentage of enrolled students in grades 1-9 who failed or dropped out by basic education cycle

	Basic education (1st cycle)		Basic education (2nd cycle)		Basic education (3rd cycle)
	2009	2019	2009	2019	2009	2019
Lezíria do Tejo	4.1%	2.5%	9.4%	4.7%	13.1%	4.4%
Alto Alentejo	3.7%	3.2%	7.8%	6.7%	9.1%	4.4%
Alentejo Litoral	4.0%	1.7%	11.1%	3.2%	13.1%	5.2%
Alentejo Central	3.8%	2.5%	8.3%	5.1%	11.9%	6.9%
Baixo Alentejo	4.8%	5.3%	10.1%	7.3%	15.8%	8.9%
Alentejo	4.1%	3.0%	9.2%	5.3%	12.6%	5.8%
Portugal	3.6%	2.1%	7.6%	3.8%	14.0%	5.8%

Source: (PORTDATA, 2021[8])

The reduction in retention and dropout rates in the past years happened in the context of a PNPSE program at the end of the 2015/2016 school year. The program requested school clusters and ungrouped schools to design strategic action plans to be implemented in the following two school years (PNPSE/ DGE, 2019[3]). In the context of the implementation of the programme, Alto Alentejo was one of three TL3 regions in Portugal where more than 60% of schools managed to reduce retention in the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd cycles by at least 25% (Figure 4.1). The other four TL3 regions of Alentejo, however, saw slower progress, especially Baixo Alentejo where only 25% of schools managed to reduce retention in the 2^nd cycle by at least 25%. On the other hand, Alentejo Central had considerable differences between cycles: 67% of schools managed to improve their retention rates by at least 25% in the 1^st cycle and only 23% of schools achieved the same improvement in the 3^rd cycle.

Figure 4.1. Relative shares (%) of schools per TL3 region that have reduced their retention and dropout rates by at least 25%, in each education cycle, between the 2014-2016 biennium and the 2016-18 biennium

Note: Data from Direção-Geral de Estatísticas da Educação e Ciência (DGEEC). Região Autónoma dos Açores and Região Autónoma da Madeira are not represented in the Figure.

Source: (PNPSE/ DGE, 2019[3])

The large improvement made by some TL3 regions despite high initial levels suggest that school success depends largely on the pedagogical, didactic and organisational measures undertaken by schools and municipalities under the right incentive schemes. On the other hand, the differences across educational levels suggest that teaching cultures according to the cycles of basic education have an impact on results (PNPSE/ DGE, 2019[3]). Nevertheless, the widening gaps between Baixo Alentejo and Alentejo Central vis-à-vis the rest of the regions suggests that geographic and demographic factors may be also at play.

Efficiency within schools has improved but remains below OECD levels

Expenditure by student data is not systematically calculated at any geographical level in Portugal, according to the responses from relevant authorities to the OECD study survey. Available data for 2014 shows that expenditure per student in Portugal is below OECD levels in all educational levels, which is expected given lower teacher wages in Portugal compared to the OECD mean (Liebowitz et al., 2018[2]) (OECD, 2021[9]). The country actually spends a larger proportion of its GDP in all basic educational levels (in primary 1.8% versus 1.5%, in lower secondary 1.3% versus 1.0% and in upper secondary 1.4% versus 1.2%) and spends 33% more in secondary education compared to primary.

In absence of expenditure data, statistics on teacher-to-school ratios can give an idea about within school efficiency. In 2019 there were on average about 10.6 students per teacher in primary schools and 9.2 students per teacher in secondary schools in Alentejo, in line with national values and below the OECD average of 13 and 12 students per teacher (OECD, 2021[9]). Available data for primary schools in 2017/2018 shows that, similar to the national level, average student-to-teacher ratios across schools in Alentejo are lowest in villages (10.8), followed by sparse rural areas (11.3) and towns and suburbs (14), although the ratio varies more widely in this last category (standard deviation of 11 compared to 4-5 in sparse rural areas and villages).

Student-to-teacher ratios in primary schools increased between 2009 and 2015 and then decreased in 2015-2019. This reverse in trend happened in both urban municipalities such as Benavente, Vendas Novas and Évora that had a larger ratio to start with and in smaller rural municipalities that had the lowest ratios (i.e. 4-5 students per teacher below the regional mean) (Figure 4.2). Meanwhile, average student-to-teacher ratios in secondary schools remained stable.

Figure 4.2. Highest and lowest student-to-teacher ratio evolution by municipalities in Alentejo

2009-2019

Source: (PORTDATA, 2021[8]).

Long travel to school times and costs affect the motivation of students and teachers in remote areas

Many times, school and buses schedules are not compatible, especially in the afternoon’s way back. On the other hand, during weekends and school holidays, school transport is much scarcer or even inexistent during the summer holidays. This prevents many children from leaving their municipalities for extra-curricular activities offered by other schools during these periods.

In secondary education, the low diversity of educational provision in rural areas and long travel times may be behind high retention and dropout rates as well as demotivation rates. Many rural small localities offer only one programme of study, which prevents students with limited access to transport from choosing the programme they are most interested in according to their academic and professional goals. This is also true for vocational education. As students enrol in the only vocational training course offered by their municipality, they may lack of motivation because it is not their first choice.

At the same time, long travel distances between facilities are of concern for teachers in the most remote schools of Alentejo. Given the absence of public transport alternatives, teachers have to spend a significant part of their day driving to school locations. Analysis from the mission study found that some teachers experience demotivation and high stress levels from having to travel long distances to reach schools as part of their work in clustered rural schools.

Cost and distance estimates reveal a tight trade-offs for many rural municipalities

This sub-section reviews evidence on costs and access estimations based on school location simulation and actual demand produced by (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12]). “Costs” include running costs such as salaries and ICT equipment, and exclude capital or fixed investments such as school building construction or renovation. The excess of cost in a region results mostly from the presence of small schools in areas with low local demand, and can be interpreted as a measure of the unavoidable costs of smallness and remoteness. Costs are measured at the place of residency of students, so when aggregated they are meant to capture the situation experienced by students living in a municipality regardless of whether they attend school within the municipal borders or not.

According to the estimates, annual costs per primary and secondary student in Alentejo were 10% and 6%-7% above the average for Portugal and EU27+UK. All TL3 regions in Alentejo, except for Lezíria do Tejo, are on the top 10% highest primary and secondary costs per student across EU27+UK regions (Table 4.4). Regions with higher costs also have smaller share of kids and adolescents in school age, with a difference of almost two percentage points between the region with the lowest and highest shares (Alentejo Litoral versus Lezíria do Tejo). The share of 5-19 year-olds across TL3 regions in Alentejo is also lower (13%-15%) compared to the average for remote regions across EU27+UK regions (16%).

Table 4.4. Rank of annual cost per student among EU27+UK TL3 regions and share of 5‑19 year‑olds

Percentile rank from smallest to highest annual costs across 1 348 EU27+UK regions (100% = highest value across OECD regions)

TL3 region	Rank annual primary school costs per student, 2011 (%)	Rank annual secondary school costs per student, 2011 (%)	Share 5 to 19 year-olds in total population (%)
Alentejo Litoral	97%	98%	13.0%
Baixo Alentejo	96%	98%	13.9%
Alto Alentejo	94%	94%	13.7%
Alentejo Central	92%	93%	14.0%
Lezíria do Tejo	67%	74%	14.9%

Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12]).

Both cost and distances per student vary widely across municipalities in Alentejo, and some clearly face both high cost and high distances. Distance per student estimates across municipalities reveal a high dispersion in travel times that are even wider across schools. For primary schools, distances vary between less than 1km to over 4km, while for secondary schools distances range between less than 3km to over 12km (Figure 4.3). At the school level, distances to primary and secondary schools can go above 9km and 18km and costs can exceed EUR 10 000 and EUR 8 500 in the smallest and most remote municipalities. Some municipalities where there is a relatively larger proportion of students in primary school age, including all municipalities in Lezíria do Tejo, have relatively small costs but widely varying distances for primary schools. In contrast, many municipalities face both high costs and high distances. The most extreme case is Mértola, a municipality near the Spanish border of about 7 000 inhabitants that had 4 times less people in 2011 compared to 1960.

Figure 4.3. Annual costs and distance per student by municipality

2011

 

Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12]).

Many municipalities that face high distances and costs also have higher retention and dropout rates

The comparison of actual and simulated indicators by municipality can reveal differences between the actual school network to one resulting from an efficient allocation of students (i.e., one based on transport cost minimisation under no administrative limitations on catchment areas). The comparison is and is made in relative terms to account for absolute differences in the number of students across municipalities stemming from the different student population considered.5

Figure 4.4 plots the actual minus simulated number of students per school against the actual minus simulated number of students per teacher by municipality. These variables aim to capture differences in the level of spatial concentration and within school efficiency compared to the benchmark case. Out of the 58 municipalities in Alentejo, 16 are on the lower right quadrant of the graph, indicating that those municipalities may have higher average efficiency and spatial concentration compared to the simulated placement. While data availability does not allow corroboration, it is likely that students in those municipalities travel longer distances to schools compared to what the simulated placement predicts.

Figure 4.4. Actual versus simulated students per school and students per teacher by municipality

2011

Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12]) and (PORTDATA, 2021[8]).

To generally evaluate if there is a relationship between costs and access on the one hand, and quality indicators on the other, Figure 4.5 plots actual retention and dropout rates in lower secondary (3^rd cycle) by municipality against estimates of annual costs and distances for secondary schools. Generally, municipalities that have higher distances and costs also show higher retention and dropout rates. This is especially evident in Ourique and Vidigueira in Baixo Alentejo and Mora in Alentejo Central. The small size of schools and how difficult they are to reach may be discouraging students from continuing their studies.

Figure 4.5. Annual cost and distance per student versus retention and dropout rates by municipalities (secondary)

2011 and 2019

Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12]) and (PORTDATA, 2021[8]).

Future policy scenarios by degree of urbanisation

After establishing cost, quality and access trade-offs, this section focuses on future policy scenarios for Alentejo. Data across degrees of urbanisation reveals that both cost and distance per student are higher in sparse rural areas, that in 2011 concentrated 27% of primary school and 12% of secondary school students (Table 4.5). By 2035, the number of primary and secondary students is projected to decrease by 29% and 26%, with stronger declines projected in towns and suburbs (37% and 27%).

Table 4.5 summarises key indicators under two different scenarios: 1) what if the school network in 2035 responded efficiently to new demand levels? (i.e. the school network to 2035 is set up according to 2035 student numbers or “2035 students/2035 schools” scenario) and 2) what if the present school network is kept intact in the future? (i.e. keeping the same 2011 school network in 2035 or “2035 students/2011 schools” scenario). Under the first scenario:

• the number of primary schools would decrease by 10%, with the largest changes concentrated in towns and suburbs (20 out of 39 schools less);

• the number of secondary schools would decrease by 18%, with the largest changes concentrated in villages (11 out of 24 schools less);

• The percentage change in number of teachers in primary and secondary schools would roughly correspond to the decrease in the number of students, except for proportionally higher decreases in sparse rural areas for the case of secondary schools;

• Annual costs per student in primary and secondary schools would increase 4% and 1%, while distances per student would change slightly, with the largest changes in villages for the case of secondary schools;

• Adapting the school network to future demand would create significant changes in remote areas, despite low average changes (Figure 4.6).

In contrast, under the second scenario:

• The number of teachers in primary schools would decrease more than proportionally than the drop in the number of students in sparse rural areas and villages, and less than proportionally in towns and suburbs. Compared to the first scenario, this represents a drop of around 663 instead of 715 teachers in sparse rural areas and 745 instead of 769 teachers in villages, and 913 instead of 846 in towns an suburbs;

• The number of teachers in primary schools would decrease more than proportionally than the drop in the number of students in all areas, with the largest differences in sparse rural areas;

• Annual cost per student in primary schools would increase more than under the first scenario, especially in towns and suburbs, while distances would decrease slightly. On the other hand, costs and distances per student for secondary schools would remain roughly similar compared to the initial situation.

Table 4.5. Summary of changes in key cost and access indicators by degree of urbanisation

2011-2035

	2011			2011-2035	2035 students/2035 schools				2035 students/2011 schools
Degree of urbanisation	Share of students (%)	Annual costs per student rel. to min. (%)	Distance per student (Km)	Change in students (%)	Change in schools (%)	Change in teachers (%)	Change in annual costs per student (%)	Change in distance (Km)	Change in teachers (%)	Change in annual costs per student (%)	Change in distance (Km)
	Primary schools
Sparse rural	27%	31%	4.72	-22%	-8%	-22%	4%	0.12	-28%	1%	-0.14
Villages	31%	13%	2.11	-24%	-3%	-25%	5%	0.09	-27%	3%	-0.12
Towns and suburbs	43%	0%	1.70	-37%	-29%	-37%	1%	-0.05	-32%	12%	-0.05
Total	100%			-29%	-10%	-29%	4%		-30%	6%
	Secondary schools
Sparse rural	12%	16%	11.53	-21%	-20%	-23%	-1%	-0.45	-26%	-2%	0.07
Villages	42%	11%	6.99	-26%	-16%	-27%	0%	0.91	-28%	0%	-0.10
Towns and suburbs	46%	0%	3.24	-27%	-19%	-26%	2%	0.12	-28%	1%	-0.06
Total	100%			-26%	-18%	-26%	1%		-28%	0%

Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12])

Figure 4.6. Projected change in distance to primary schools

2011-2035

Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12])

An alternative policy scenario considers the question: “what if the 2011 school network remains the same in 2035 but student-to-teacher ratios increase everywhere?” The results show that increasing student-to-teacher ratios by 3 more students per teacher reduces annual costs per student by 5%, 12% and 15% in primary schools in sparse rural areas, villages and towns and suburbs, respectively. The impact for secondary schools is uniform across areas, as annual costs per student decrease by 20% in sparse rural areas and by 21% in villages and towns and suburbs.

To further understand the effect of policy choices on future costs and access,

Figure 4.7 displays the comparison between the baseline and the 3 policy scenarios for annual costs per primary (panel a) and secondary (panel b) school students in sparse rural areas.

In primary schools, reorganising the school network to decreased future demand has the effect of preserving similar cost and distance levels to the present scenario, mainly by decreasing the number of high-cost per head small schools that would result from keeping the same network in the future. In contrast, a within-school efficiency policy has the effect of making schools cheaper while preserving the same cost dispersion and distance levels than in 2011.

For secondary schools, the effects of increasing within school efficiency are much more visible, while a policy of school reorganisation maintains annual costs at present levels while slightly increasing travelled distances for the bulk of students (without effect on the general dispersion of travel times).

Figure 4.7. Density of annual cost and distance per primary school student under two different policy scenarios

Note: “Schools 2011/Students 2035” corresponds to annual costs and distance per student when the school network of 2011 serves students in 2035; “larger student/teacher ratio” corresponds to the case when student-to-teacher ratios are increased from 13 to 15 students per teacher in primary schools and from 12 to 15 secondary school students per teacher under the “Schools 2011/Students 2035” scenario. Annual costs calculated at schools.

Source: Author’s elaboration based on (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[12])

Recommendations

Demographic changes in Alentejo – with one of the fastest population decline and ageing rates across OECD regions – challenge the provision of education services. These demographic trends imply lower demand for education services and the need to better adapt local public service provision in the region as well as to encourage a better coordination among levels of government. While school consolidation in Portugal has been efficiency-enhancing, school transportation times and costs in remote and sparsely populated areas remain a major challenge in Alentejo. In addition to geographical and demographic factors, inequalities in access to schools across the region are also linked to the local organisation of the transport system. Finally, gaps in digital skills and broadband connectivity present a major challenge that needs to be addressed in order to improve access to education and the organisation of transport.

Further institutional cooperation and involvement of inter-municipal communities (IMCs), a better consideration of local realities to bridge quality and access gaps as well as to improve the geographical mobility of teachers, or policies to reduce digital gaps and potentiate digital services – especially in transport –, could be used to better provide quality educational services throughout the Alentejo region.

Design a specific strategy to bridge quality and access gaps in lagging and remote rural municipalities

Given the fast progression of school consolidation and the already long distances to schools many students face, the national government should pay special attention to designing tailored strategies for small rural municipalities and lagging regions that have failed to improve quality indicators and that have high distances and small schools.

In particular, the national government could undertake cost-benefit analyses that fully take into account the effect of school closures on the accessibility of students living in the most remote areas and associated costs of school transport, even if these do not fall under their responsibility. To this end, the national government or the CCDR Alentejo could commission a dedicated study projecting the financial sustainability of the current model given demographic projections, taking into account structural under-investment in physical infrastructure in these areas. In cases where a new strategy is needed, the government could consider maintaining (or even re-opening) small schools regardless of their size while focusing on quality teaching or piloting alternative transport models with EU or national support as explained below.

Extend municipal strategic planning instruments for school network restructuring to Inter-Municipal Communities

Given the strongly varying local context in Alentejo, municipalities need flexibility to adapt to the effects of demographic change on the school network. Currently, education charters are a municipal strategic planning instrument aimed at reorganising the network of educational and pedagogical facilities. Under the second generation of educational charters, some municipalities have defined and applied their own municipal principles to be followed in the process of reorganising the school network in a way that is more in line with the educational policy defined at local level.

Besides as a way of increasing flexibility, these strategic planning instruments could also be used as vehicle to coordinate actions among neighbouring municipalities. The creation of inter-municipal school network planning instruments, such as inter-municipal education charters, would allow planning beyond municipal administrative boundaries (Santos, Alcoforado and Rochette Cordeiro, 2018[13]). These actions could be undertaken on the framework of increased planning at the level of IMCs.

When planning new school buildings consider co-location and future demand

Many small rural schools struggle with fixed costs including maintenance, repairs and refurbishing of old school buildings. Under-funding for fixed costs since the 2008 financial crisis has resulted in deficient school facilities in some rural municipalities that for instance struggle to offer optimal conditions for students during the summer or winter months (because of lack of heating and/or air conditioning).

Timely decisions on school buildings in rural areas could improve the financial situation of the poorest municipalities while contributing to closing quality gaps. In reconditioning and building new schools, the national government should work closely with municipalities and regions towards innovative models including service co-location (OECD, 2021[9]), and plan strategically the location of new schools based on future demand projections. The cooperation between levels of government on a new model for rural schools is especially relevant in the context of the COVID-19 recovery funds and the digital agenda, as schools can be part of larger digital service hubs in rural communities.

Improve the geographical mobility of teachers while increasing within school efficiency

The ability of Alentejo to design tailored solutions for teacher shortages issues is limited given that teaching responsibilities remain under the full control of the national government. Currently, several teachers are deployed in rural areas by central decision rather than by choice. As a result, many are unfamiliar with the communities where they teach, do not belong to local projects and networks, and ask for a change of location in the following year. The impact of recruitment policies ultimately affects teacher motivation and through this channels feeds into rural-urban gaps in the quality of education.

The government could consider re-evaluating its model of teaching recruitment for rural schools to enhance the participation of municipalities and regions in the process, and ensure a better alignment between needs and motivation. Furthermore, in addition to the opportunities offered by distance learning, the national government should encourage the geographical mobility of teachers – especially young ones – through career incentives (e.g. faster progression of the career system for young teachers), experience-sharing networks by more experienced teachers, and more clear compensation for long travel times. These incentives could be complemented with compensation for long travel times that go beyond financial compensation, including for instance flexible work hours, shorter dedication in classrooms or rotation systems for itinerant teachers, or accommodation support (e.g. teachers' residences).

Further develop transport on demand solutions and increase cooperation between municipalities for the provision of transport

Alentejo local authorities should develop further “Transporte a pedido”6 in the near future, and make the service more dynamic. The provision of Demand-Responsive Transport (DRT) services benefit the entire rural population, from dependent people needing access to basic services, to teachers and upper secondary and vocational students – with more flexible schedules – living in remote areas. DRT initiatives have proven to be effective for school transportation in other countries. In France, “Résa’Tao”, the transport on demand service of Orléans metropolis, and “Icilà”, the transport on demand service of the urban community of Sophia Antipolis, regularly cover school transport. However, in Alentejo most of the circuits have limited timetables, with one way in the morning and one return in the afternoon or even evening, which does not always accommodate class schedules. The project currently lacks a mobile application and reservations can only be made by phone until 12:30pm on the working day before the day of travel.

The current "Transporte a pedido" service could find a way to incorporate existing sophisticated software from the “Résa’Tao” and “Icilà” systems. The software provides users and drivers with reliable and comprehensive real-time information and the possibility to make last-minute bookings from a mobile application or by phone. The routes, the stops and the timing of the service is flexibly adapted based on users demand. The software also has powerful algorithms that take into account itineraries, times and vehicle occupancy rates to optimise every trip, which has led to an increase in the rate of passenger grouping.7 As the system improves, local authorities should put in place an effective information and marketing strategy to better inform rural inhabitants on these initiatives. The evaluation of the “Grass Routes” service in Wales reported that many local residents were unaware of the service, or thought that the service was not relevant to where they lived, or that it concerned a particular group such as the elderly or disabled (Goodwin-Hawkins, 2020[14]). Transport on demand policies can also be complemented by other measures, such as the provision of an electrically assisted bicycle service, with the deployment of cycle connections, or the full or partial subsidy of driving licences for young people in rural communities.

At the institutional and administrative level, a supra-municipal perspective and greater cooperation between municipalities, inter-municipalities and school clusters could be beneficial for school transport in Alentejo. Such cooperative efforts to improve the transport network already exist in certain sub-regions and should be extended to all the region of Alentejo. This is the case, for example, in Baixo Alentejo and Alto Alentejo, with specific agreements between municipalities and school clusters, or in Montemor-o-Novo in Central Alentejo, where the important role of local parishes in school transport has brought positive results. A better coordination of stakeholders in Alentejo will allow better integration of transport on demand services with regional and national bus networks as well as scaling services from a local to a regional level. CCDR Alentejo should encourage regional transport partnerships across the Alentejo region and provide a space for dialogue between multiple local stakeholders to specifically improve the challenge of school transport, which is key to improving the educational perspectives of Alentejo students, from the youngest to those on vocational training courses.

Develop digital skill plans through cooperation and networks

To support the implementation of the digitalisation of educational services strategy at the national level, the CCDR Alentejo could support the creation of a committee of volunteer teachers to support teachers from rural communities with the most difficulties in their adaptation and training process. Fostering collaboration between teachers has proven to have a positive impact on the use of ICT in classes and on the teaching of digital technologies to students (OECD, 2020[15]). Through a comprehensive and place-based approach, these committees, by following a specific roadmap to 2023, would also ensure that the target of 100% of teachers with digital capabilities by 2023 is achieved specifically in rural areas. These rural committees could also coordinate with the sub-region’s Training Centres and their "Digital Ambassadors" in order to assess every six months the difficulties encountered in the field and to ensure targeted follow-up and support for teachers with insufficient levels of digital skills according to the European online self-assessment tool (TET-SAT).

Moreover, in the framework of the national initiative “Portugal INCoDe.2030”, networks bringing together employees from digital sectors and teachers could be created in order to review and exchange ideas on the new ICT curriculum guidelines. This interdisciplinary cooperation would better inform students about the broad opportunities offered by digital careers and the digital skills required to access them. This is the case of the Israeli technology incubator MindCET, which promotes collaboration between educational technology developers, schools and teachers to create innovative models for learning with technology. The incubator also offers teachers the opportunity to become edtech entrepreneurs and pilot new innovative pedagogies in their schools. Another example is the Estonian Edulabs programme that enables schools and researchers to develop innovative educational technologies. It also offers an online platform where teachers help each other or consult each other to use technological resources (Burns and Gottschalk, 2020[16]).

Assess and fulfil demand for secondary student accommodation facilities

Establishing a strategy for student accommodation can be an effective alternative to solve the challenges of school transport. A few municipalities in Alentejo have student residences. Some are managed by municipalities and supported by national administration funds (e.g. Serpa, Beja, Almodovar, Portalegre) or will soon be according to the decentralisation programme (Decree-Law no. 21/2019) (e.g. Alcácer do Sal, Odemira).

Accommodating students over 16 years of age during school days would not only avoid daily transport problems, and consequently study performance related issues, but would also allow young people in the region to have a wider educational offer and thus more career opportunities. European Recovery Funds could finance all or part of these residences.

On the other hand, some of the student residences provided by the Ministry of Education throughout the country are not operational due to a lack of demand. The national government could implement a plan to restructure the network of student residences in order to better match supply with demand efficiently and to concentrate student residences where they are most needed.

References

[16] Burns, T. and F. Gottschalk (eds.) (2020), Education in the Digital Age: Healthy and Happy Children, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1209166a-en.

[4] Diário da República (2016), Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 23/2016, n.º 70/2016, Série I de 2016-04-11, https://dre.pt/home/-/dre/74094661/details/maximized?p_auth=J4UPdZ4U.

[7] Direção-Geral da Educação (n.d.), Academia Digital para Pais, https://www.dge.mec.pt/academia-digital-para-pais.

[6] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019), Digital Education at School in Europe, Eurydice Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/sites/default/files/en_digital_education_n.pdf.

[14] Goodwin-Hawkins (2020), Demand Responsive Transport in Rural Areas, University of Gloucestershire, June 2020, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24576.05124.

[5] Government of Portugal (2020), Plano de Ação para a Transição Digital de Portugal, https://www.portugal.gov.pt/gc22/portugal-digital/plano-de-acao-para-a-transicao-digital-pdf.aspx.

[10] Instituto de Avaliação Educativa IP (2019), Relatorio Nacional PISA Resultados 2018, https://www.cnedu.pt/content/noticias/internacional/RELATORIO_NACIONAL_PISA2018_IAVE.pdf.

[1] Liebowitz, D. et al. (2018), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264308411-en.

[2] Liebowitz, D. et al. (2018), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264308411-en.

[9] OECD (2021), Delivering Quality Education and Health Care to All: Preparing Regions for Demographic Change, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/83025c02-en.

[15] OECD (2020), Making the Most of Technology for Learning and Training in Latin America, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ce2b1a62-en.

[11] OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.

[12] OECD/EC-JRC (2021), Access and Cost of Education and Health Services: Preparing Regions for Demographic Change, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4ab69cf3-en.

[3] PNPSE/ DGE (2019), Relatório PNPSE 2016-2018: Escolas e Comunidades tecendo Políticas Educativas com base em Evidências, July 2019, https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/bitstream/10174/25940/1/Escolas%20e%20Comunidades%20tecendo%20Pol%C3%ADticas%20Educativas%20com%20base%20em%20Evid%C3%AAncias%20%28Relat%C3%B3rio%20PNPSE%202016-2018%29.pdf.

[8] PORTDATA (2021), Education data, https://www.pordata.pt/Tema/Portugal/Educa%c3%a7%c3%a3o-17 (accessed on 1 June 2021).

[13] Santos, Alcoforado and Rochette Cordeiro (2018), Os municípios e a educação: os desafios da descentralização para o planeamento da rede escolar, ResearchGate, January 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338980757_Os_municipios_e_a_educacao_os_desafios_da_descentralizacao_para_o_planeamento_da_rede_e3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F338980757_Os_municipios_e_a_educacao_os_desafios_da_descentralizacao_par.

Notes

← 1.  The last two years of secondary education (ages 15-17) include three paths: a) science-humanities courses; b) vocational courses; c) other education and training provision.

← 2.  Decree-Law no. 55/2018, 6th July and Decree-Law no. 21/2019, 30th January. See https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/portugal_en.

← 3.  According to the decentralisation law (Decree-Law no. 21/2019), the costs free system is extended from pre-primary to upper secondary education. The funding formula is still under negotiation between central and local authorities.

← 4.  Portugal was the European country with the highest decrease of the early leave from education and training in Europe, from 2001 to 2020.

← 5.  Both primary and secondary schools are included although primary schools are more comparable than secondary schools. This case is more comparable than secondary schools. Age ranges in the simulated approach for primary school comprise 6-11 year-olds, so comparatively the actual school data includes an additional year. The split in 3 different paths in secondary schools makes comparisons difficult with simulated secondary schools that consider a single path for students aged 12-18 years-old.

← 6.  Alentejo launched in 2019 the pilot transport on demand project “Transporte a pedido”. It has 25 circuits in Baixo Alentejo (Beja, Mértola, Moura), Alentejo Litoral (Odemira) and Alentejo Central (Reguengos de Monsaraz).

← 7.  Demand-responsive transport services make it easier for people in sparsely populated areas to access health services or their workplaces. This is the case, for example, of Wales, where the “Bwcabus” service has reduced home visits by doctors and average journey times to the nearest employment centre from 52 to 27 minutes (Goodwin-Hawkins, 2020[14]).