A Complex Network Approach to Structural Inequality of Educational Deprivation in a Latin American Country

  • Harvey Sanchez-RestrepoEmail author
  • Jorge Louça
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


To guarantee the human right to education established by the fourth UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goal, a deep understanding of a big set of non-linear relationships at different scales is need it, as well as to know how they impact on learning outcomes. In doing so, current methods do not provide enough evidence about interactions and, for this reason, some researchers have proposed to model education as a complex system for considering all interactions at individual level, as well as using computer simulation and network analysis to provide a comprehensive look at the educational processes, as well as to predict the outcomes of different public policies.

The highlight of this paper is modeling the structure of the inequality of a national educational system as a complex network from learning outcomes and socio-economic, ethnicity, rurality and type of school funding, for providing a better understanding and measuring of the educational gaps. This new approach might help to integrate insights improving the theoretical framework, as well as to provide valuable information about non-trivial relationships between educational and non-educational variables in order to help policymakers to implement effective solutions for the educational challenge of ensuring inclusive and equitable education.


Structural network Large-scale assessments Policy informatics 


  1. 1.
    OECD: Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility, PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    UN DESA: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. UN, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGrath, S., Nolan, A.: SDG 4 and the child’s right to education. NORRAG NEWS 54, 122 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanchez-Restrepo, H.: Equity: the focal point of educational quality. National Educational Evaluation Policy Gazette in Mexico, Year 4, no. 10, pp. 42–44 (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The investment case for education and equity. Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keeley, B., Little, C.: The State of the World’s Children 2017: Children in a Digital World. UNICEF, vol. 3. United Nations Plaza, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Samman, E.: SDG progress: fragility, crisis and leaving no one behind: report (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gray, J., Kruse, S., Tarter, C.J.: Enabling school structures, collegial trust and academic emphasis: antecedents of professional learning communities. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 44(6), 875–891 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laboratorio Latinoamericano de Evaluacion de la Calidad de la Educacion - LLECE (2018). Agenda 2018.
  10. 10.
    Hopfenbeck, T.N., et al.: Lessons learned from PISA: a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on the programme for international student assessment. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 62(3), 333–353 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barabasi, A.-L., Pasfai, M.: Network Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borsboom, D., Molenaar, D.: Psychometrics. In: Wright, J. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, vol. 19, pp. 418–422. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, F., et al.: Model selection methods for mixture dichotomous IRT models. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 33(5), 353–373 (2009)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bracho, T.: Índice de dficit en competencias Avanzamos hacia la garanta del derecho a la educacin? en Reformas y Polticas Educativas, no. 4, septiembre–diciembre 2017, FCE, Mexico (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marsman, M., Borsboom, D., Kruis, J., Epskamp, S., van Bork, R., Waldorp, L.J., Maas, H.V.D., Maris, G.: An introduction to network psychometrics: relating ising network models to item response theory models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 53(1), 15–35 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costantini, G., Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., Perugini, M., Mottus, R., Waldorp, L.J., Cramer, A.O.J.: State of the art personality research: a tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. J. Res. Pers. 54, 13–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kossakowski, J.J., Epskamp, S., Kieffer, J.M., van Borkulo, C.D., Rhemtulla, M., Borsboom, D.: The application of a network approach to health-related quality of life (HRQoL): introducing a new method for assessing HRQoL in healthy adults and cancer patient. Qual. Life Res. 25, 781–792 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forbush, K., Siew, C., Vitevitch, M.: Application of network analysis to identify interactive systems of eating disorder psychopathology. Psychol. Med. 46(12), 2667–2677 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gibson, L., Koenig, A.: Neighboring groups and habitat edges modulate range use in Phayre’s leaf monkeys (Trachypithecus phayrei crepusculus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66(4), 633–643 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Borkulo, C.D., Borsboom, D., Epskamp, S., Blanken, T.F., Boschloo, L., Schoevers, R.A., Waldorp, L.J.: A new method for constructing networks from binary data. Sci. Rep. 4(5918), 1–10 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of SciencesUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Information Sciences, Technologies and Architecture Research CenterISCTE-IULLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations