Andhra Pradesh Priorities: Education, Sunay Policy Advisory

1. Education Rajesh Chakrabarti, Kushal Sagar Prakash, Mansi Arora Sunay Policy Advisory Andhra Pradesh Priorities conference, Vijayawada, June 18-20, 2018

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

5. First analyzed intervention Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)

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

12. Second analyzed intervention Computer assisted learning (CAL) at the right level

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

19. Third analyzed intervention Performance based incentives to teachers

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

25. Fourth analyzed intervention In-service training of teachers

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

30. Fifth analyzed intervention 50 percent reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio

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

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

37. Background slides

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