2. Introduction
Analyzed
interventions
Conclusion
Structure of the presentation
Teaching at the right level
Computer assisted learning at
the right level
Performance pay incentives to
teachers
In-service training of teachers
Further reduction of PTR
Analyzed interventions
3. Introduction
Enrolment
numbers &
retention
rates in
India
Quality of
education
in India
Learning outcomes continue to
remain low and even decline
over years in Andhra Pradesh
45% of Grade 5 students state
could not read a Grade 2
textbook in 2016
% of Grade 5 students able to
do division decreased from
47 % in 2007 to 37% in
2016
Improving learning
outcomes with limited
budget
Andhra Pradesh spends
spends about 15% of its
GDP on education, but far
more is needed.
Reaping higher benefits
from its expenditure
would enable Andhra
Pradesh to bridge the
gap.
4. More about the current state
Declining enrolments in Andhra Pradesh government schools
3974194 4934846
2479036 2441204
7332625
5967621
3368535
3128681
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
Years 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
ENROLLMENT
Andhra Pradesh Enrollment
Pvt. Schools Govt. Schools
Split of AP and Telangana
6. Description of TaRL
Organizing children in groups based on current learning levels, instead of an
age based classification
Also known as Remedial Education and Special training
Stipulated by both RTE and AP State rules for 3 months to 2 years for pupils with
age in-appropriate learning levels
Temporary setting to improve learning levels– not a permanent arrangement
7. Models of deploying TaRL or remedial education
Two ways of deploying TaRL
Running camps with
staff and volunteers
over short intervals
The scale is small
Partnership with
government
The scale is large
Ways of setting time for TaRL in school
An extra hour to
the school day
exclusively for
TaRL
Incorporating
TaRL within the
existing school
time
Exclusive TaRL
time in camps
Eg: In Haryana Eg: In AP
Eg: Pratham’s
Balsakhi program
Eg: In Haryana, AP
Eg: Pratham’s
Balsakhi program
Analyzed
8. Costs involved in implementing TaRL
Cost components
Estimated total costs per student annually
For TaRL with no extra hour: Rs. 1108
For TaRL with an extra hour: Rs. 2296
Direct cost of
teaching
Opportunity cost of
teachers’ and
volunteers’ time
Volunteer’s time for
preparation, travel and
assistance
Volunteer’s, teacher’s and
students’ time
9. Benefits from TaRL
Benefits are gains in lifetime earnings from improved learning outcomes
Aslam et al. (2011) links gain in test scores with labour market returns
Benefit is Rs. 49,209 for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits at 5% discount rate is calculated
Improved
learning
outcomes from
TaRL
Improved test
results
Wage returns
from improved
test results
3%
(Impact on wage/yr)
10. Benefits from TaRL
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Gaininannualincome
Working age of an individual
Benefit to an individual with age
11. Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratios
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit
(1000 INR)
89.02 49.21 22.72
Cost (1000
INR)
1.11 1.11 1.11
BCR 80 44 21
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit
(1000 INR)
89.02 49.21 22.72
Cost (1000
INR)
2.30 2.30 2.30
BCR 39 21 10
Scenario 1: with no extra hour Scenario 2: with an extra hour
13. Description of computer assisted learning (CAL) at the right level
Application of personalized technology for increased positive effect on learning
outcomes
Adaptive to
children’s level
Complementary to
classroom teaching
Scalable
Intuitive & easy to
use
Least dependent
on infrastructure
14. Mindspark is an education software that:
Adapts to student’s learning levels and learning pace
Analyzes data to identify patterns of student errors
Targets content to alleviate conceptual ‘bottlenecks’
Helps educators plan lessons and discover new teaching methods, and in-sync with the school curriculum
Used by 400,000 students, has a database of over 45,000 test questions, and administers over a million
questions every day
The model of Mindspark is analyzed for benefit-cost ratio
The study uses evidence from an evaluation of Mindspark done in Delhi in
2017
15. Costs involved in implementing CAL at the right level
Cost components
Costs for scaling are estimated from Muralidharan et al (2017)
Cost per student for 5 month scaled intervention is Rs.1333
Infrastructure Hardware Staffing
Pro-rated cost for
software
development
Cost for Pilot:
Rs.1000 per student per month
Cost for >50 schools
Rs.267 per student per month
Costs for >1000 schools
Rs.130 per student per month
16. Benefits from CAL at right level
Benefits are gains in lifetime earnings from improved learning outcomes
Benefit is Rs. 83,328 for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits at 5% is calculated
Improved
learning
outcomes from
CAL at RL
Improved test
results
Wage returns
from improved
test results
Aslam et al. (2011)Muralidharan et al. (2017)
5.1%
(Impact on wage/yr)
17. Benefits from CAL at right level
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Gaininannualincome
Working age of an individual
Benefit to an individual with age
18. Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratio
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit (1000
INR)
150.7 83.3 38.5
Cost (1000 INR) 1.3 1.3 1.3
BCR 113 62 29
20. Description of performance pay incentive to teachers
Providing pay incentives (bonus) to teachers that are linked to performance of
students
Literature finds evidence of the intervention:
Reducing teacher absenteeism
Getting teachers to apply sincere effort
Increase children’s test score
Outside India, literature also finds evidence of no impact
A relatively difficult intervention to implement, sustain and scale
Negative performance did not hurt the teachers. But positive performance got them bonus pay
21. Costs involved in providing performance pay incentive to
teachers
Cost components
Muralidharan (2012) estimates the annual cost for 1 student annually in 2005 for 5 year intervention
Present value of total annual cost of the intervention per student was estimated to
be Rs.2,391
Net present value of costs is taken, considering intervention goes on for 5 years
Program cost
Cost of
administration
Rs.552 per student annually
(with inflation adjustment)
22. Benefits from performance pay incentive to teachers
Benefits are gains in lifetime earnings of students from improved learning
outcomes
Benefit is Rs. 34,724 for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits at 5% discount rate is calculated
Improved learning
outcomes from
incentive
Improved test
results
Wage returns from
improved test
results
Conservative effect size
from a suite of Indian
studies on incentives
Aslam et al. (2011)
2.13%
(Impact on wage/yr)
23. Benefits reaped with age
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Gaininannualincome
Working age of an individual
Benefit to an individual with age
24. Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratio
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit (1000 INR) 67.2 34.7 14.6
Cost (1000 INR) 2.5 2.4 2.2
BCR 27 15 7
26. Description of in-service training to teachers
Involves providing in-service training to teachers to build skills and
values
Takes place periodically during the year
Formal programs that are educational or social in nature
Involves all teachers currently active in the state
The RTE expects the state governments to create a system of in-service
training in the state
27. Problems with current approach of in-service training
No need assessment for the training type
and level for teachers
No mechanism to identify which teachers
to call based on teachers who attended/
did not attend the same training in the
past
Lack of motivation among teachers to
attend the training
Master trainers are not fully equipped to
conduct high quality 10 day training after
attending only a 5 day training
28. Cost and benefit from in-service teacher training
Cost components
Cost per student every year is Rs.372
Benefits
For the present model of in-service training, the benefits would be less than or equal to the cost
Direct cost of teacher
training
Opportunity cost for
teachers to avail training
29. Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratio
BCR for the intervention: ~ 1
The benefit cost ratio of this intervention is based on the review of literature
Rigorous & in-depth tertiary courses +
pre-service training:
0 to modest effects on student learning
(literature)
Benefits from less rigorous and general
in-service training:
Highly limited
If in-service training approach is revamped:
A modest 0.01 SD improvement in test scores can yield a BCR of 8 in Andhra Pradesh
31. Description of further reducing PTR
Reduction of pupil teacher ratio (PTR) further by 50%
RTE stipulates PTRs for primary and upper primary levels
Andhra Pradesh is well within the target
Review of literature suggests that further reductions may yield greater effects
on learning outcomes
(Muralidharan and Sundararaman 2013, Giridar and Karopady 2005)
Based on the idea that smaller class size leads to improved learning
Case of AP even with PTR within RTE figures, further 50% reduction of PTR improved performance
substantially
32. Costs involved in further reduction of PTR
Cost components
Annual cost of intervention per student: Rs.13,455
Salary of
additional
teachers
Identifying and
recruiting extra
teachers
Training extra
teachers
Infrastructure
Not considered
Hence conservative estimates of costs Optimistic BCR
Annual wage of trained
teacher in AP:
Rs.2,96,000
33. Benefits from reducing PTR
Benefits are gains in lifetime earnings of students from improved learning
outcomes
Benefit is Rs. 73,534 for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits at 5% discount rate is calculated
Improved learning
outcomes from
incentive
Improved test
results
Wage returns from
improved test
results
Muralidharan and
Sundararaman, 2013
Aslam et al. (2011)
4.5%
(Impact on wage)
34. Benefits reaped with age
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Gaininannualincome
Working age of an individual
Benefit to an individual
35. Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratio
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit (1000 INR) 142.2 73.5 30.81
Cost (1000 INR) 13.5 13.5 13.5
BCR 11 5 2
36. Conclusion
•Five education interventions are studied in the paper
62
44
15
1 5
21
Computer assisted learning
at the right level
Teaching at the right level Performance pay incentive
to teachers
In-service training of
teachers
Reducing PTR by 50 percent
Benefit- Cost ratio summary for education interventions
Without an extra hour With an extra hour
High BCRs
TaRL, CAL at right level, performance based
incentives to teachers
Low BCRs
In-service training of teachers, reducing PTR
ratios
38. Aslum et al SD gains to labour market returns
• 1000 HHs 18 villages, 6 towns (in India– 6 districts of Rajasthan and
MP)
• 14000 individuals’ data on demographic, anthropometric, education
and labour market
• Estimation of Mincerian earning function:
•Single equation model that explains wage income as a function of schooling
and experience
• Y: Annual earning of individual
• S: Years of literacy/ numeracy/ English
• β: returns to skills/ language
• X: Observed characteristics
39. Aslum et al SD gains to labour market returns
• Earning functions are estimated at HH level
• There is a linear relationship between years of schooling and earnings
(Mincerian Earning function
•RESTRICTIVE Model
•Assumes that the return to each additional year of schooling is the same
across each year
• Presumption of linearity is relaxed by introducing a quadratic term for
education
• This leads to convex education-earnings relationship exists for all
occupations in India
Hinweis der Redaktion
Enrolment rate increased from 91% in 2006 to 96% in 2016
Only about 27% of students in Grade III were at Grade III level in 2016
Balsakhi: Maharashtra and Gujarat (2001-03), paid community instructors; SD increased by 0.14 in first year
Haryana: Mahendragarh & Kurukshetra (2012-13) rural districts. Government teachers monitored by BRC
The study uses effect size and cost structure from the evaluation study done in Delhi
IDInsight did another evaluation of Mindspark. For Murlidharan’s
10 years of product development
After-school Mindspark centers are evaluated in low income neighbourhoods in Delhi
90 mins per day, 6 days a week, modest fees. 619 students sampled from public middle schools
Negative performance did not hurt the teachers. But positive performance got them bonus pay
Rural primary schools in AP.
Makes a case for transparently administering the incentive program
0.17 SD effect size from Duflo et al (2011) and
0.17 SD effect size for Math in first year from Murlidharan (2012)
International evidence suggests an effect size between 0.1 SD (McEwan, 2015) and 0.3 SD (M&S, 2011)
Geeta Kingdon finds that the quality of teachers impact the student scores. But there is no relationship between quality and training.
She finds that teachers quality was not a function of qualification, prior training or age.
Murlidharan and Sunderaman (2013):
100 randomly selected schools in AP
Untrained contract teachers were found as effective as regular civil service teachers
Not considered: Hence conservative estimates of costs (higher BCR)
