Education Rigorous Literature Review

2y ago
22 Views
2 Downloads
2.54 MB
81 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Mika Lloyd
Transcription

Education Rigorous Literature ReviewThe role and impact of private schools in developingcountriesLaura Day AshleyClaire McloughlinMonazza AslamJakob EngelJoseph WalesShenila RawalRichard BatleyGeeta KingdonSusan NicolaiPauline RoseApril 2014

This material has been funded by the Department for International Development. Theviews expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department for InternationalDevelopment. The authors are part of University of Birmingham; Institute of Education,University of London; Overseas Development Institute; and the Education for All GlobalMonitoring Report.This paper can be found on the DFID Research for Developmenthttp://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/ and the EPPI-Centre website: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/website:The EPPI-Centre reference number for this report is 2206.Day Ashley L, Mcloughlin C, Aslam M, Engel J, Wales J, Rawal S, Batley R, Kingdon G,Nicolai S, Rose P (2014) The role and impact of private schools in developing countries: arigorous review of the evidence. Final report. Education Rigorous Literature Review.Department for International Development.This report is an update to the version of the paper published in April 2014. CopyrightAuthors of the review hold the copyright for the text of the review. The authors givepermission to display and print the contents of the review for their own non-commercialuse, providing that the materials are not modified, copyright and other proprietary noticescontained in the materials are retained, and the source of the material is cited clearlyfollowing the citation details provided. Otherwise users are not permitted to duplicate,reproduce, re-publish, distribute, or store material from this review without expresswritten permission.i

ContentsAcronyms . iiiExecutive summary. 11.Introduction . 41.1 Objectives and scope . 41.2 Defining private schools reaching disadvantaged children . 41.3 Emergence of the debate on private schools for the poor . 52. Conceptual framework: the initial theory of change . 63. Methodology . 93.1 Search strategy. 93.2 Inclusion criteria . 93.3 Assessing and recording data from individual studies . 113.4 Assessing and synthesising bodies of evidence . 113.5 Limitations of the methodology . 134. Outline and assessment of the evidence. 144.1 Supply – an assessment of the evidence . 144.2 Demand – an assessment of the evidence . 274.3 Enabling environment– an assessment of the evidence . 344.4 Summary of the evidence. 425. Synthesis of the evidence and gap analysis . 455.1 Where is the evidence strongest and where is it weakest? . 455.2 What are the key gaps in the evidence? . 475.3 Where might future research focus? . 486. Conclusion: the effects of private schools on education, an evidence-based theory ofchange . 50References . 53Appendices . 59Appendix 1: Authorship of the report . 59Appendix 2: Studies included in the review . 60Appendix 3: Hypotheses (H) and counter hypotheses (CH) . 66Appendix 4: Review process and search terms . 68Appendix 5: Sources. 70Appendix 6: Tools to assess and rate individual study quality . 72Appendix 7: Tools for reviewing individual studies . 73Appendix 8: Assessment of overall strength of body of evidence for each assumption . 74ii

AcronymsAPPGAll-Party Parliamentary GroupASERAnnual Status of Education ReportA 1-17Assumptions 1-17DFIDDepartment for International Development (UK)EFAEducation For AllHDRCHuman Development Resource CentreH 1-8Hypotheses 1-8KCPEKenya Certificate of Primary EducationLCPLow-cost private schoolLEAPSLearning and Educational Achievement in Punjab SchoolsLFPLow-fee private schoolNCAERNational Council of Applied Economic Research (India)ODIOverseas Development Institute (UK)PEIRAPrivate Educational Institutions Regulatory Authority (Pakistan)PERIPrivatisation in Education Research InitiativePPPPublic–private partnershipPRISAMPrivate Schools Association of MalawiPTRPupil–teacher ratioRIndian RupeeRCTRandomised controlled trialUNESCOUnited Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organizationiii

Executive summaryIntroductionThis paper presents a rigorous review of evidence on the role and impact of privateschools on the education of school-aged children in developing countries. It wascommissioned by the Department for International Development (DFID) and produced by amulti-disciplinary team of researchers and advisers with expertise in education,economics, international development and political economy from the University ofBirmingham, Institute of Education, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and theEducation For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report. The focus of the review is on privateschool delivery of education to poorer sections of societies, including private schoolsidentified as low-fee private schools (LFPs). The strength of the evidence is assessed andgaps are identified which highlight areas for further research.Following an initial sifting of the literature which produced extensive results, parameterswere set by the review team to further narrow focus. Literature included in this reviewhas therefore been published in the past five years, sourced from DFID priority countries,and includes only research judged to be of high or medium quality.Conceptual frameworkThe research question driving the review is: Can private schools improve education forchildren in developing countries? The conceptual framework set out a number ofhypotheses and assumptions that underpin the polarised debate about the potential andreal contribution of private schools. These are interrogated through a rigorous andobjective review of the evidence and findings are mapped on to an evidenced theory ofchange.MethodologyA phased review process enabled a common working framework with investigationundertaken in careful sequence and in parallel across a team of researchers, co-ordinatedby a team lead and reviewed by advisers. To ensure its reliability for policy-makers andresearchers, the review adopted a comprehensive search strategy with transparentinclusion criteria which resulted in 59 eligible studies. Rigorous measures were put inplace to ensure a balanced approach to assessing and synthesising the body of evidence.Key findingsWhere is evidence strongest/moderate? Strong evidence: Teaching is better in private schools than in state schools, interms of higher levels of teacher presence and teaching activity as well as teachingapproaches that are more likely to lead to improved learning outcomes. Moderate evidence: Private school pupils achieve better learning outcomes whencompared with state schools. However, there is ambiguity about the size of thetrue private school effect. In addition many children may not be achieving basiccompetencies even in private schools. Moderate evidence: The cost of education delivery is lower in private schools thanstate schools often due to lower salaries for private school teachers compared withtheir government school counterparts. Most of the evidence does not rigorouslyanalyse the cost-effectiveness of private schools; however, there is some limited1

The role and impact of private schools in developing countries: a rigorous review of the evidenceevidence to indicate higher cost-effectiveness of private schools than state schoolsin specific contexts. Moderate evidence: Perceived better quality of private schools (in terms ofteaching, teacher attendance, school performance, small class size, discipline)compared with state schools is a key factor in parents’ choice of private schools.Other important factors cited include English-language instruction, futureoccupation possibilities and promotion rates to secondary school. Moderate evidence: The perception of ‘private schools as better quality’ isinformed informally, often through parents’ informal social networks; such sourcesplay a significant but often under-recognised role in informing users in their choiceof school. Moderate evidence: Attempts by states to intervene in the private educationsector are constrained by a lack of capacity, legitimacy and knowledge of thesector to implement effective policy frameworks. Moderate evidence: Where state regulation of private schools exists, it is notnecessarily effective or may be selectively enforced offering opportunities for rentseeking and bribery. Although the findings are mostly negative, there are someexamples of positive state regulation supporting the expansion of private schoolprovision; however there are also concerns that private sector provision may bepromoted by states without adequate regulation and quality controls. Moderate evidence: There is moderate strength evidence that private schools tendto be more expensive than state schools in terms of both school fees and hiddencosts such as uniforms and books.Which areas of evidence are weak and inconclusive? Evidence on whether private schools are equally accessed by boys and girls isinconsistent. Several studies indicate that girls are less likely than boys to beenrolled in private schools, but this finding is context specific with some findingsambiguous on the issue and a minority of studies finding that private schoolsreduce the gender gap in certain contexts. The evidence is ambiguous about whether private schools geographically reach thepoor. Although private schools are continuing to focus on urban areas, they are alsobecoming increasingly prevalent in rural areas; but research cautions againstassuming this means they are reaching the poor. The evidence on whether the poor are able to pay private school fees isambiguous. Most is neutral, some is negative, but there is no positive evidence. Anumber of studies find that a small minority of children of lower economic quintilesaccess private schools. Financial constraints are a key factor limiting or preventingpoorer households from enrolling their children in private schools. Where childrenof poorer households do attend private schools, research indicates that welfaresacrifices are made and continued attendance is difficult to sustain. There are very few studies addressing rigorously the accountability of privateschools to users. Of these, there is some consistent evidence that users participatein and influence decision making in private schools. While a small body of mainlyanecdotal evidence indicates that teachers and schools may respond to parents’demands and complaints and ultimately the potential threat of parents exercisingchoice, no evidence was found in the studies reviewed that users do in fact change2

Executive summaryschools in response to quality concerns, or are more likely to do so in the case ofprivate schools than government ones. There is limited evidence to enable any conclusion to be drawn about the financialsustainability of private schools. The issue is not directly addressed in theliterature reviewed. Indirect evidence based on the length of operation of schoolssuggests this is variable, with some private schools operating for many years.However, there is also limited evidence that indicates private schools, especiallyLFPs, may be vulnerable to closing down. The evidence on subsidies is limited in scope, size and context, but one donorfunded programme in Pakistan indicates that conditional and targeted subsidiescan raise the quality of inputs. There is little evidence to support or refute the question of the system-wideeffects of private education. The evidence base on whether private schoolscomplement or compete with government school provision is very small, howeversome evidence indicates a supply-side synergy between government and privateschools provision and there is evidence that private schools are filling gaps wheresupply of government schools is low, but also where government schools areperforming poorly. The evidence on whether the effect of competition is to driveup the quality of public schools or to deplete it by encouraging more able studentsto exit the state sector is sparse and contested.Where are the gaps?In addition to the gaps identified from the areas that remain inconclusive, someoverarching critical gaps in the evidence base were identified. These were: There is a lack of data on the true extent and diverse nature of private schools. The existing evidence is geographically heavily weighted to South Asia with a muchmore limited African focus. No material was found on conflict-affected or fragilestates. Few studies focus exclusively on middle and secondary schools or on peri-urbanareas. No research was found on the effect of international companies or chains of privateschools. Types of research designs are limited with a paucity of longitudinal research, indepth ethnographic research, and comparative work. Few studies offer a political economy analysis of private schooling.Based on a gap analysis from the rigorous review, the report outlines some areas forfurther research that could strengthen this evidence base.Arriving at general conclusions from the evidence reviewed is difficult because of thediversity of private schools, the significant gaps in the evidence and the fact that availableresearch is rarely generalisable in itself. However, some of the findings were rated strongor moderate; while these findings cannot be universally translated into policy regardless ofcontext, they do merit policy-makers’ attention. What is clear, moreover, is the need formore targeted research to fill the gaps in our understanding of the role and impact ofprivate schools in developing countries.3

1. Introduction1. Introduction1.1 Objectives and scopeThis paper presents a rigorous review of evidence on the role and impact of privateschools on education for school-aged children in developing countries. It wascommissioned by the Department for International Development (DFID) and produced by amulti-disciplinary team of researchers and advisers with expertise in education,economics, international development and political economy from the University ofBirmingham, Institute of Education, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the EFAGlobal Monitoring Report (see Appendix 1).The focus of the rigorous review is on private school delivery of education to poorersections of societies, including those private schools that are identified as low-fee privateschools (LFPs)1. The purpose of the review is: (i) to present the latest quality publishedevidence on whether and how private schools improve education; and (ii) to identify gapsin the evidence and highlight areas for future research. The paper presents a conceptualframework that hypothesises how private schools might improve educational outcomes forchildren in developing countries. Assumptions underpinning key hypotheses are tested andinterrogated through a review of the evidence to arrive at an evidenced theory of change.Following an initial sifting of the literature which produced extensive results, parameterswere set by the review team to ensure a focus on publications of the highest quality andgreatest relevance. Literature included in this review has therefore been judged to be ofhigh or medium quality, published in the past five years and focused on DFID prioritycountries.1.2 Defining private schools reaching disadvantaged childrenIt was necessary to clarify our definition because the term ‘private school’ is used withvarying meanings in the literature and in the policy debate (Bangay 2007; Day Ashley 2009,2013; Kitaev 1999; Lewis and Patrinos 2012; Moran 2006; Rose 2006; Srivastava 2013). Thisreview adopted as the key factor defining ‘private schools’ that they are dependent onuser fees to cover all or part of their operational and development costs. Thus, thedistinctiveness of private schools is that they have to follow the market to attract andretain students in order to be financially viable. Some state schools may also charge feesso the review employed two other defining factors, that private schools are managedlargely independently of the state, and are owned and/or founded independently ofthe state.It is important to note that with any definition of private school, boundaries remainblurred. For example, ‘private’ schools may be partially funded and regulated by thestate; even those that operate mostly independently of the state still interact withgovernments – whether to achieve registration, get teaching materials, follow a nationalcurriculum or examination system, or just to avoid scrutiny. On the few occasions whereblurred boundaries were apparent in studies to be reviewed, the above working definitionwas used pragmatically to decide whether they should be included in the review. In mostof the literature reviewed, however, private schools were explicitly referred to as such.Less accessible in the literature was information on the extent of fees charged by private1Also referred to as low-cost private schools (LCPs) in the literature. However, this term iscontentious as some commentators consider that the poor demand education at a low price tothem, not at a low cost of delivery which is often provided in an unregulated manner (APPG).4

1. Introductionschools or whether profits were made. Therefore we are not always able to talk about‘low-fee’ private schools or ‘for-profit’ private schools with certainty. However, it wasclear that the studies included in the review were focusing on non-elite private schools.The motivation for operating private schools (e.g. values, profit/non-profit, income,influence) was not used as a defining parameter in the review as this is an intangibledescriptor that is complicated by the fact that school owners of any description mayexpress their motivations as a combination of competing commitments to philanthropy,corporate social responsibility and business interests (see, for example, Ball 2007 andSrivastava 2007).This rigorous review did not include studies that did not explicitly define their focus asprivate schools. It is intended that other non-state schools, such as schools run bycharities, NGOs or religious organisations, will be the focus of a second rigorous review,and a further report will follow that will present a synthesis of the

Education Rigorous Literature Review. i This material has been funded by the Department for International Development. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department for International Development. The authors are part of University of Birmingham; Institute of Education, University of London; Overseas Development Institute; and the Education for All Global Monitoring .

Related Documents:

01 Rigorous High School Program 02 Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate Coursework 03 Coursework When the Eligibility/Payment Reason Code 01, a school must also submit to COD the appropriate Rigorous High School Program Code. This code is a 6-position alpha-numerical string. This section provides the listing of Rigorous High .

This rigorous review of literature on interventions to enhance girls' education and gender equality was commissioned by DFID in December 2012. The review has been conducted by a team of experts on gender and education, with a range of complementary expertise. The review team set out to undertake a systematic search through existing databases and

5.2 Studies included in the review 76 SECTION II 85 Chapter 6 The impact of cash transfers on monetary poverty 86 6.1 Summary of findings 88 . This is a rigorous literature review, which complies with core systematic review principles - breadth, rigour and transparency - while allowing for a more flexible handling of retrieval and .

Most researchers in the sciences do not plan how to write a literature review Graphically describes the types of literature reviews States 10 rules in writing a good literature review. Taylor-Powell, E. and Renner, M. / 2003 Analyzing Qualitative Data Qualitative Analysis or Content Analysis -- another name for Literature Review?

- English Literature 2: Medieval and Early Modern Literature - English Literature 3: The Long Nineteenth Century - English Literature 4: Literary Theory - English Literature 5: Modern and Contemporary Literature - English Research Seminar - Literature, Empire and the Postcolonial World - Texts in Focus 1 - Texts in Focus 2 5.

1 EOC Review Unit EOC Review Unit Table of Contents LEFT RIGHT Table of Contents 1 REVIEW Intro 2 REVIEW Intro 3 REVIEW Success Starters 4 REVIEW Success Starters 5 REVIEW Success Starters 6 REVIEW Outline 7 REVIEW Outline 8 REVIEW Outline 9 Step 3: Vocab 10 Step 4: Branch Breakdown 11 Step 6 Choice 12 Step 5: Checks and Balances 13 Step 8: Vocab 14 Step 7: Constitution 15

Technology , Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development ) 1. Introduction This literature study is a follow -up of the formal literature review The impact of Curriculum Reform: A review of the literature (Voogt, Nieveen, Sligte & Lemmens, 2016) ( EDU/EDPC/RD(2016)39 ) conducted for the Future of Education and Skills: the

An Alphabetical List of Diocesan and Religious Priests of the United States REPORTED TO THE PUBLISHERS FOR THIS ISSUE (Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Archabbots and Abbots are listed in previous section)