1.
Education
Rajesh Chakrabarti, Kushal Sagar Prakash, Mansi Arora
Sunay Policy Advisory
Rajasthan Priorities conference, Jaipur, June 8-11

2.
Introduction
Analyzed
interventions
Conclusion
Structure of the presentation
Teaching at the right level
Computer assisted learning at
the right level
Performance linked pay
incentives to teachers
In-service training of teachers
Further reduction of PTR
Analyzed interventions

3.
Introduction
Enrolment
&
retention
rates in
India
Quality of
education
in India
Learning outcomes continue to
remain low and even decline
over years in Rajasthan
 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
46.8 % in 2007 to 37.2% in
2016
Improving learning
outcomes with limited
budget
 Rajasthan’s education
budget fell from 19% in
2010 to ~17% in 2016
(RBI, 2016)
 Reaping higher benefits
from current expenditure
is one way to bridge the
gap

4.
More about the current state
Enrolments in Rajasthan government and private schools
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Private schools Government Schools

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
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 APEg: Pratham’s
Balsakhi program
Eg: In Haryana, AP Eg: Pratham’s
Balsakhi program
Analyzed

7.
Costs involved in implementing TaRL
Cost components
Estimated total costs per student annually
For TaRL with no extra hour: Rs.1157
For TaRL with an extra hour: Rs.3028
Direct cost of
teaching
(Rs.813 per child annually)
Opportunity cost
Volunteer’s time for
preparation, travel and
assistance
(Rs.344 per child annually)
Volunteer’s, teacher’s and
students’ time
(Rs.2215 per child annually)

8.
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.58,525 annually for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits is calculated
Improved
learning
outcomes from
TaRL
Improved test
results
(0.15 SD increase in
Lang)
Wage returns
from improved
test results
3%
(Impact on wage/yr)

9.
Benefits from TaRL
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
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 over lifetime

10.
Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratios
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit
(1000 INR)
105 58.5 27.4
Cost (1000
INR)
1.15 1.15 1.15
BCR 91 51 24
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit
(1000 INR)
105 58.5 27.4
Cost (1000
INR)
3.03 3.03 3.03
BCR 35 19 9
Scenario 1: without an extra hour Scenario 2: with an extra hour

11.
Second analyzed solution
Computer assisted learning (CAL) at the right level

12.
Description of computer assisted learning (CAL) at the right level
Application of personalized technology for increased positive effect on learning
outcomes
Provides differentiated remedial instruction (based on learning levels), has an interactive user interface
and allows for feedback
The model of Mindspark is analyzed for benefit-cost ratio
Mindspark CAL software, developed by Educational Initiatives (EI). Some key highlights:
• Used by 400,000 students, has a database of over 45,000 test questions, and administers over a million
questions every day
• Benchmarks the learning level of every student and customizes material delivered based on level and rate of
progress
• Analyzes data to identify patterns of student errors, and targets content to alleviate conceptual ‘bottlenecks’

13.
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 falls to Rs.267 per student per month if it is scaled to 50 schools, from Rs.1000 for pilot

14.
Benefits from CAL at right level
Benefits are gains in lifetime earnings from improved learning outcomes
Benefit is Rs.98,825 annually for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits is calculated
Improved
learning
outcomes from
CAL at RL
Improved test
results
0.36 SD increase Math
0.22 SD increase Lang
Wage returns
from improved
test results
Aslam et al. (2011)Muralidharan et al. (2017)
5.08%
(Impact on wage/yr)

15.
Benefits from CAL at right level
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
10 11 12 13 14 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 over lifetime

16.
Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratio
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit (1000 INR) 177.2 98.8 46.3
Cost (1000 INR) 1.3 1.3 1.3
BCR 133 74 35

17.
Third analyzed solution
Performance based incentives to teachers

18.
Description of performance linked 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
Literature also finds evidence of no impact
A relatively difficult intervention to implement, sustain and scale

19.
Costs involved in providing performance pay incentive to
teachers
Cost components
Murlidharan (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)

20.
Benefits from performance pay incentive to teachers
Benefits are gains in lifetime earnings of students from improved learning
outcomes
Benefit is Rs.58,442 annually for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits is calculated
Improved learning
outcomes from
incentive
Improved test
results
(0.17 SD increase)
Wage returns from
improved test
results
Conservative effect size
from a suite of Indian
studies on incentives
Aslam et al. (2011)
3.06%
(Impact on wage/yr)

21.
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

22.
Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratio
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit (1000 INR) 112 58.4 24.9
Cost (1000 INR) 2.5 2.4 2.2
BCR 44 24 11

23.
Fourth analyzed solution
In-service training of teachers

24.
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
 Conducted in the form of formal or in-formal programs that are educational
or social
 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

25.
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

26.
Cost and benefit from in-service teacher training
Cost components
Cost per student annually is Rs.574
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
(Rs.4558 annually per teacher)
Opportunity cost for teachers
to avail training
(Rs.6346 annually per teacher)

27.
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 would yield a BCR of 6 in Rajasthan

28.
Fifth analyzed solution
50 percent reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio

29.
Description of further reducing PTR
Reduction of pupil teacher ratio (PTR) further by 50%
RTE stipulates PTRs for primary (30) and upper primary levels (35)
Rajasthan 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)
Case of AP  even with PTR within RTE figures, further 50% reduction improved performance substantially
Based on the idea that smaller class size leads to improved learning

30.
Costs involved in further reduction of PTR
Cost components
Annual cost of intervention per student: Rs.17,368
Salary of additional
teachers
Identifying and
recruiting extra
teachers
Training extra
teachers
Not considered
Hence conservative estimates of costs  Optimistic BCR
Annual wage of trained
teacher in Rajasthan:
Rs.3,30,000

31.
Benefits from reducing PTR
Benefits are gains in lifetime earnings of students from improved learning
outcomes
Benefit is Rs.85,944 annually for every individual
Net Present value (NPV) of lifetime benefits is calculated
Improved learning
outcomes from
incentive
Improved test
results
(0.25 SD increase)
Wage returns from
improved test
results
Muralidharan and
Sundaramana, 2013
Aslam et al. (2011)
4.5%
(Impact on wage)

32.
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

33.
Total costs, total benefits and cost-benefit ratio
Discount rate
3% 5% 8%
Benefit (1000 INR) 164.7 85.9 36.6
Cost (1000 INR) 17.4 17.4 17.4
BCR 9 5 2

34.
Conclusion
Five education interventions are studied in the paper
High BCRs
TaRL, CAL at right level, performance based
incentives to teachers
Low BCRs
In-service training of teachers, reducing PTR
ratios
74
51
24
1 5
19
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

35.
Conclusion
1.2 1.3 2.4 0.6
17
59
99
59
0
86
TaRL CAL at RL Teacher Incentive In-service Training PTR
Costs Benefits
Size of costs and benefits (1000 INR)

36.
Background slides

37.
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

38.
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