private-schools-full-report

Recommendations

Info

The role and impact of private schools in developing countries: a rigorous review of the evidence across the entire education system has not, however, been rigorously addressed through empirical research. The limited evidence comes from few contexts, and the findings to date are contradictory. Neutral evidence Few of the reviewed studies make claims about the impact of private schools beyond the educational outcomes of their own pupils. One exception is Pal (2010), who is neutral on the supposed effects of competition on the quality of education outcomes overall. Using data from five states across rural India, the study shows that the presence of a private school did have a significant positive impact on village-level class 5 pass rates, but failed to have any significant impact on village government school class 5 pass rates. This was attributed to a lack of real competition between private and government schools, the latter of which enjoyed secure enough funding to not be incentivised to compete on quality (Pal 2010). Supporting evidence Andrabi et al.’s (2009) rigorous RCT appears to contradict Pal’s (2010) conclusion, finding that market competition did lead to quality improvements across all types of schools in rural Pakistan. Importantly, however, it was the provision of information that was key to spurring this competition: when comparable information on school performance was provided to users, all schools were pressured to pursue 'price-adjusted quality', although private schools were more responsive to this market pressure than the government schools. Counter evidence Härmä and Rose’s (2012) findings in remote rural India more directly refute the assumption that competition is good for overall education outcomes, particularly in terms of equity. Their study highlighted some important unintended consequences of market competition between private and public schools. Not only did private schools have no positive effect on the quality of government schools, but exit from government schools by those who could afford to pay fees was seen to condemn the poorest households to lower quality government schooling. 4.4 Summary of the evidence Figure 4.1 provides summary evidence maps indicating which studies produce positive, neutral and negative findings in relation to each testable assumption. Overall assessments of the body of evidence for each assumption are presented in the first row of the evidence maps. These assessments indicate (i) strength of evidence (strong, moderate or weak) and (ii) whether overall body of evidence supports (green positive symbol ‘+’), refutes (red negative symbol ‘-’), or is neutral (amber neutral symbol ‘o’) in relation to assumptions. Individual numbered studies are listed by country in square brackets and evidence maps indicate whether the studies refute (negative), support (positive) or are neutral in relation to assumptions. Numbered studies marked with an asterisk were assessed as high quality; the rest were assessed as medium quality. The full list of the numbered studies reviewed is provided in Appendix 2. 42
4. Outline and assessment of the evidence Figure 4.1: Evidence maps for each assumption Key STRONG = Body of evidence rated as ‘strong’ overall. MODERATE = Body of evidence rated as ‘moderate’ strength overall. WEAK = Body of evidence rated as ‘weak’ overall. + = Positive findings supporting assumption. - = Negative findings refuting assumption. o = Neutral findings ambiguous in relation to assumption. * = Numbered study assessed as high quality (remaining are medium) 43
Page 1 and 2: Education Rigorous Literature Revie
Page 3 and 4: Contents Acronyms .................
Page 5 and 6: Executive summary Introduction This
Page 7 and 8: Executive summary schools in respon
Page 9 and 10: 1. Introduction schools or whether
Page 11 and 12: 2. Conceptual framework: the initia
Page 13 and 14: 3. Methodology The review was under
Page 15 and 16: 3. Methodology The geographical fo
Page 17 and 18: 3. Methodology The overall strength
Page 19 and 20: 4. Outline and assessment of the ev
Page 45: 4. Outline and assessment of the ev
Page 49 and 50: 5. Synthesis of the evidence and ga
Page 55 and 56: 6. Conclusion: the effects of priva
Page 57 and 58: References Akaguri L (2011) Quality
Page 59 and 60: References Galab S, Vennam U, Koman
Page 61 and 62: References Phillips KD, Stambach A
Page 63 and 64: Appendices Appendix 1: Authorship o
Page 65 and 66: Appendix 2: Studies included in the
Page 71 and 72: Appendix 3: Hypotheses (H) and coun
Page 73 and 74: Appendix 4: Review process and sear
Page 75 and 76: Appendix 5: Sources Ingentaconnect
Page 77 and 78: Appendix 7: Tools for reviewing ind
Page 79 and 80: Appendix 8: Assessment of overall s
Page 81: This material has been funded by th

private-schools-full-report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?