CONEXIÓN DEL GPS Y CONFIGURACIÓN

There are three independent variables which have a statistically significant effect on mathematics scores:

 Gender

 Brother or sister can read English  State of building

If the child is a girl, they are less likely to score higher on maths. If a sibling can speak English, there is a greater likelihood that the child’s Maths score will be higher. One variable had a negative effect on maths scores the worse the state of the school building the greater the likelihood of scoring less on the math’s score.

There are ten different variables that have a significant effect on English scores:  Age

 School time  Live with parents

 Elder member of family can speak English  Mother has an income

 Profession of father

 Total number of years teaching (teacher)  Teacher punctuality

 State of the building  School facilities

The longer a child has been at school, the greater the likelihood they will perform well on English, if an elder member of a child’s family could speak English, it showed to have an impact on English scores, and if the teacher is punctual the greater the English score. Six variables show a negative effect on English scores. The results also showed that the older the child the lower English score. If a child does not live at home with parents, the less likely they will score well in English. If the mother has an income, there is a greater likelihood that the child will score less well in English. Looking at school demographics,

137 the worse the school facilities the less likely the child will score well in English. The results show the variation in test scores in terms of pupil, family and school characteristics in alignment to the literature. In terms of pupil and family characteristics, we can see that gender has a statistically significant effect on math with boys scoring higher than girls. There are few studies which solely focus on gender disparities outside of school provision and type. There is however, extensive literature available, which explores if private schools are equally accessible by both boys and girls. Several studies indicate that girls are less likely to access private schools than boys others find that in certain contexts private schools reduce the gender access gap that is found in state schools (Pal and Kingdon, 2010; Härmä, 2011; Aslam, 2009; Srivastava and Walford, 2007). However, according to ASER (2016) the gender gap narrows as ones socioeconomic status increases.

The supporting evidence shows that subsidies in the form of a voucher system indicate that conditional and targeted subsidies can raise the quality of school inputs and learning outcomes. Extensive literature is available which focuses on the quality of LCPs receiving public cash subsides (Fennell 2012; Barrera-Osorio and Raju 2010, 2011) Barrera-Osorio and Raju analyse a scheme run by The Punjab Education Foundation, known as Foundation Assisted Schools. The programme was found to have a significant impact on inputs such as enrolment levels, as well as on the number of teachers, classrooms and blackboards. In terms of outputs, the study aimed to analyse if education outcomes improved. Reports from school managers and parents in this research also show that in some cases classroom space and school infrastructure was improved owing to the voucher. This could be owing to the ability for school managers to use the monthly voucher payment to improve facilities and therefore attract more children to the school.

The regression undertaken to analyse test scores suggests that if an elder member of a family can speak English, the child will perform better in English. This supports some of the literature, which suggests that English language frequently at home helps to determine a child’s ability in the future. This result concurs with the findings of Aikens and Barbarin (2008) who state that poor children’s literacy development is influenced by parental and home environment.

Research shows teachers to have an impact on student achievement (Behrman, et al., 2016; Chetty et al., 2014; Hanushek, 2011). Hanushek and Rivkin (2010) review 10

138 recent studies in the United States and it is shown that, a one standard deviation rise in teacher effectiveness raises students reading a mathematic scores by 0.13 to 0.17 of a standard deviation. However, Aslam and Kingdon (2011) looked at data from 65 schools in the district of Lahore, Pakistan. They found no evidence that observable teacher characteristics affect student achievement. Andrabi et al., (2011) looked at the poor quality of learning in schools in Pakistan and accredited that to teachers. The outcome of the results from the linear regression from my study where total number of years teaching had a negative effect on student English scores seems counterintuitive. As set out in Chapter 4 this could be owing to the small number of teachers in the data set as this is likely to cause spurious results.

A study conducted by Talancé (2016) suggest that certain observable teacher characteristics are associated with student achievement: contract teachers perform better than permanent teachers, and higher wages may motive teachers and improve the quality of schooling. However, the study concluded that experience and education have little impact on students’ achievement. Similarly, other literature suggests that when teachers stay for a long time at a school, they may learn teaching methods, which are adapted to the class or particular individual (Boyd et al., 2005; Hanushek et al., 1999).

In my study school facilities had a negative impact on the outcome of English scores of student, but the state of the building showed a positive relationship with English and a negative with maths. Again this result should be taken with caution as we are only looking at six schools in the sample and therefore a very small sample.

However, more deliberate segregation, on the basis of targeted characteristic can also become a contentious issue (Siddiqui and Gorrard, 2017 p. 161). The ASER (2016) report suggest that wealth matters, that the children at the bottom of the poorest quartile are more likely to remain out of school and are more generally disadvantaged. This tends to agree with some of the literature, which suggests that achievement is not dependent on income but the quality of family background and environment and time parents spend with their children. (Bradley et al., 1987, Coleman, 1969; Murphy, 1986; Rosenbaum et al., 1987) However, the result from this study shows that if a mother has an income, this has a negative effect on English scores; this is in alignment with Cabus and Aries (2017) which indicate that academic achievement is rooted in a school supportive home environment

139 and often created by the mother. Similarly, different initiatives have looked at parental support interventions, which improve parent-child interaction. Many have had positive impacts on childhood cognitive outcomes, (Attanasio et al., 2014; Walker, et al., 2005; Banerji, et al., 2014) All of these studies have demonstrated the importance of parental support practices.

My study shows that the EVS programme has had positive impacts around access, gender equality and school improvement around facilities. There is also satisfaction amongst parents as well as empowerment and less stress owing to the voucher paying for their child’s schooling. No longer is there the worry around finding school fees and this the parents believe has had good impact around their child’s learning. Positive impacts have also been show by other voucher studies in these areas (Angrist et al., 2002, 2006; Muralidharan and Sundararaman, 2015; Barrera-Osorio et al., 2015)

One of the main aims of the study was to investigate the effect of education vouchers. The issue of poor school performance and low achievement rates is subject to major policy debates. Student outcomes were assessed by carrying out an English and maths tests with 352 students across six different low-cost private schools; 100 non-voucher students and 252 voucher students. The English test results show the mean score for voucher students is 29.50 and non-voucher 29.20. Voucher recipients performed slightly better in maths 21.26 than non-voucher students 20.21. However, the t-test showed the results were not statistically significant. But in all cases the mean score for voucher children were higher that the children not on vouchers. Hsieh and Urquiola (2006) found no evidence of improved educational outcomes as measured by test scores. Similarly, Wolf (2011) found that students performed higher in terms of reading but were similar in maths scores. Benfield (2006) examined the effects of academic achievements. However, the results show that the voucher programme does not show any substantial gains for students to other comparison groups. The success of such programmes can often be found in its operational structures and the policies that guide the development of the scheme. More rigorous research is required to assess the impact of voucher programmes and the correlation between the design and the environment into which they are introduced.

The key findings show how vouchers are supporting families by providing education vouchers. The Delhi voucher project is testing how poor students and those from

140 disadvantaged families can get better access to education. The study demonstrates this with choice. One of the many advantageous of school choice is parents are best and more likely to monitor education quality. To reform education systems is to give parents a voice in education. The aim of an education voucher is to change the way governments finance education, but once an education voucher is introduced, it gives parents the right to accessibility and choice. Schools are accountable to governments but through a voucher, which makes them directly accountable to students and parents as they are paying for this service. One of the biggest gains of the voucher seen in the study is the change in attitudes and beliefs of parents. Parent’s investment was reflected in their child’s achievement. Additionally, reflecting on Friedman’s ‘neighbourhood effect’, whereby not only do the students benefit, but there are major gains to society (Friedman, 2009). Parents in my study reflected about how important it was to be able to send their children to school and to the school of their choice. The interviews with parents really highlight how happy they were with the low cost private school in which they had placed their child.

In many parts of the developing world, poor families are sending their children to a number of different school management types. Research has shown in many parts of sub- Saharan Africa and South Asia low-fee private schools are a feasible option for parents (Walford and Srivastava, 2007; Stern and Heyneman, 2013; Härmä, 2015). One of the aims of this thesis was to investigate the difference between schools and student outcome. As discussed in the literature review, providing quality education is a major challenge for policy makers. Numerous development agencies seek to provide answers on how best to tackle this (Banerjee and Duflo, 2011). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the difference in test scores among the six participating schools. The boxplots illustrated the multiple comparison of schools with each test scores; that school four for English (M= 33) is outperforming the five participating schools; for maths, school one (M=27). The aim to understand the difference between the six schools in this study was undertaken by asking children to rate their teachers on a number of performance measures. Data analysed from student questionnaires, looked at teacher ability to teach, teacher punctuality and teachers attendance. When asked to rate teacher’s ability to teach, 94.3% rated ‘excellent’ and 5.7% rating their teacher’s ability to teach as ‘good’. The participants were then asked to rate their teachers punctuality to class. 95.2% rated ‘excellent’ and 4.0 rated ‘good’, with .9% rating it as ‘poor’. Additionally, when asked about teacher’s attendance, 97.2% rated it as ‘excellent’ and 2.8% as ‘good’. Students are

141 also satisfied with their teacher performance, attendance and punctuality. Research has shown how teachers have an impact on student achievement (Behrman, et al., 2008; Chetty, et al., 2014; Hanushek, 2011).

Talancé (2016) suggest that certain observable teacher characteristics are associated with student achievement: contract teachers perform better than permanent teachers do, and higher wages may motive teachers and improve the quality of schooling. However, the study concluded that experience and education have little impact on students’ achievement. Similarly, other literature suggests that when teachers stay for a long time at a school, they may learn teaching methods which are adapted to the class or particular individual (Boyd et al., 2005; Hanushek et al., 1999).

Private schools have shown a way forward, mobilising women as teachers and relying on teacher accountability. Andrabi also suggest that government schools and private schools “complement each other in a dynamic context. Private schools have arisen not because of government failures but, in part, because of government’s success in educating girls” (Andrabi, 2008, p.331). Since teachers in private schools are educated in government schools indicating the relationship between private and government schools. It is the low- fee of female teachers, which allow for the growth of private schools in urban areas.

One of the explanations frequently given is teaching in private schools tends to be better, and accounts for better educational outcomes, than in public schools. Goyal and Padney’s (2009) study of two states in India finds that teacher activity and attendance were similar for private and government schools in the same district. Not only levels of activity, but approaches to teaching are considered to be of better quality in private schools. Aslam and Kingdon (2011) of how teachers spend their time in class had a more significant effect on learning outcomes than the more observable teacher characteristics of certification and experience. ‘Good’ private schools often hired ‘good’ teachers, however, often; they adopted a teaching methodology that encouraged pupil testing alongside interactive lessons. The findings are supported by studies in rural and urban India. Singh and Sarkar (2012) found primary school teachers regularly checked homework, which is seen as a significant role in learning. An important caveat to consider, although a large number of studies, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods often favour

142 the quality of private school teaching, there is little consistency in terms of what researchers consider to be high quality teaching and how it is assessed.

Where teachers support students, within a classroom environment, it has shown this can affect academic and social outcomes for the child. This will lead to better employment opportunities (Baker et al., 2008; O’Connor et al., 2011). The teacher interview also emphasised the belief that family background and school environment was having an impact on the child’s ability.

In my study parents talked about teachers being accountable and accessible to them through the EVS programme. Parents also felt that their children were now learning more at school owing to the voucher programme. Teacher attitudes had changed, the parents believed and they were now putting in more effort owing to the voucher and were spending more time at school to care for the children.

5.3 How has the Introduction of Vouchers Impacted on the School Community and