2017年-世界发展银行全球_Delivering_Education_to_the_Underserved_through_a_Public-Private_Partnership_Program_in_Pakistan_46页_1mb

Summary of "Delivering Education to the Underserved through a Public-Private Partnership Program in Pakistan"

Core Content

This paper presents an experimental evaluation of the short-term impacts of a public-private partnership (PPP) program in Sindh province, Pakistan, called the Promoting Low-Cost Private Schooling in Rural Sindh (PPRS) program. The study uses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness of the program in increasing school enrollment and improving student learning outcomes.

The PPRS program was designed to address low school enrollment and gender disparities in education by offering public subsidies to local entrepreneurs to establish and operate tuition-free, coeducational primary schools in underserved villages. The program was implemented in 200 villages across eight districts, with 100 villages receiving a gender-differentiated subsidy (higher for girls) and 100 villages receiving a gender-uniform subsidy. The remaining 38 villages served as control groups.

Main Findings

• School Enrollment: The program increased school enrollment by 30 percentage points for children aged 6–10, and by 12 percentage points for children aged 11–17.
• Test Scores: It raised total test scores by 0.63 standard deviations and student test scores by two standard deviations for those who enrolled due to the program.
• Gender-Targeted Subsidy: The gender-differentiated subsidy did not lead to larger impacts on girls’ enrollment or test scores compared to the gender-uniform subsidy.
• Program School Effectiveness: Program-school students scored 0.16 standard deviations higher than students in nearby government schools, even though they came from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Efficiency of Input Choices: The program administrator and partnering entrepreneurs effectively chose school inputs, capturing approximately 90% of the possible surplus. The main differences between the program schools and the social planner’s optimal solution were the inclusion of toilets and drinking water and the use of less experienced but more educated teachers.

Key Information

Program Design

• Subsidy Structures:
  • Gender-uniform subsidy: 350 rupees per student (about $5 in 2008 USD).
  • Gender-differentiated subsidy: 350 rupees for boys and 450 rupees for girls (about $6.40 in 2008 USD).
• Program Benefits:
  • Free schooling.
  • Free school leadership and teacher training.
  • Free textbooks and teaching materials.
• Program Eligibility:
  • Villages with a significant out-of-school child population.
  • Villages with a gender disparity in school enrollment.
  • Villages where the nearest school was at least 1.5 kilometers away.
  • Villages with sufficient building space and at least two female teachers with eight years of schooling.

Evaluation Methodology

• Sample Size:
  • Baseline survey: 2,089 households and 5,556 children aged 5–9.
  • Follow-up survey: 5,966 households and 17,720 children aged 5–17.
• Random Assignment:
  • 263 villages were randomly assigned to either the subsidy treatment or control group.
  • After corrections, the effective sample included 82 gender-uniform villages, 79 gender-differentiated villages, and 38 control villages.
• Data Collection:
  • GPS data were collected for all surveyed households and schools.
  • Surveys included information on household characteristics, child work and schooling, and aspirations.
  • A test was administered to children aged 5–9 to measure learning outcomes.

Impacts on Education

• Enrollment: The program significantly increased enrollment, especially among the target age group (6–10).
• Learning Outcomes: There was a substantial improvement in test scores, indicating better learning outcomes.
• Gender Aspirations: Program-village households expressed higher aspirations for their children to pursue non-traditional careers, such as doctors, engineers, and teachers, rather than security personnel or housewives.

Conclusion

The study highlights the potential of PPP programs to improve education access and quality, particularly in underserved rural areas. It also underscores the importance of market-based accountability in private schools and the effectiveness of public subsidies in encouraging the establishment of cost-effective, high-quality schools. Despite the gender-differentiated subsidy, no significant gender-specific benefits were observed, suggesting that the gender disparity in enrollment may not be solely driven by financial incentives. The program’s success in improving learning outcomes, even for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, suggests that private schools can be more effective than government schools in certain contexts.