delhi schools research

8/8/2019 Delhi Schools Research

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/delhi-schools-research 1/15

International Journal of Educational Development 27 (2007) 205–219

Private schooling for low-income families: A census and

comparative survey in East Delhi, India

James TooleyÃ, Pauline Dixon

School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne NE1 7RU, England, UK

Abstract

A census and survey of schools in the slums of East Delhi, India, explored the nature and extent of private education

serving low-income families, and compared inputs to public and private schooling. Around two-thirds of all schools were

private unaided, with more unrecognised private than government schools. Teaching activity was found to be considerably

higher in private unaided than government schools, although teacher absenteeism was lowest in government schools. Most

inputs showed either comparable levels of provision in government and private unaided schools, or superiority in private

unaided schools. Possible implications are explored, concerning targeted vouchers, increased regulation and self-

regulation.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Comparative education; Development; Educational policy; Private education

1. Introduction

The existence of a low-cost private education

sector serving low-income families in developing

countries is widely reported in the international

development literature. The Oxfam Education Re-

port reports ‘y the notion that private schools are

servicing the needs of a small minority of wealthy

parents is misplaced y a lower cost private sector

has emerged to meet the demands of poor house-holds’ (Watkins, 2000, pp. 229–230). The Probe

Team (1999) researching villages in four north

Indian states reports that ‘even among poor families

and disadvantaged communities, one finds parents

who make great sacrifices to send some or all of

their children to private schools, so disillusioned are

they with government schools’ (p. 103). Dre ` ze and

Sen (2002) estimated that, even by 1994, some 30%

of all 6–14 year olds in rural areas were enrolled in

private schools, while 80% or more of this age

group attend private schools in urban areas,

including low-income families (p. 172). Reporting

on evidence from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and

Rajasthan, De et al. (2002) note that ‘private

schools have been expanding rapidly in recent years’

and that these ‘now include a large number of primary schools which charge low fees’, in urban as

well as rural areas (p. 148). Alderman et al. (2001,

2003) report on similar findings from Pakistan. For

the poor in Calcutta (Kolkata) there has been a

‘mushrooming of privately managed unregulatedy

primary schools’ (Nambissan, 2003, p. 52). Re-

search in Haryana, India found that private

unrecognised schools ‘are operating practically in

every locality of the urban centres as well as in rural

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

0738-0593/$- see front matterr 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.08.002

ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 191 222 6374.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Tooley).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.08.002

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.08.002

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev



areas’ often located adjacent to a government

school (Aggarwal, 2000, p. 20). In Uganda and

Malawi private schools have ‘mushroomed due to

the poor quality government primary schools’

(Rose, 2002, p. 6; Rose, 2003, p. 80), while a ‘large

increase’ of ‘fly-by-night’ private schools has beenreported in South Africa (Rose, 2002, p. 4). In

Kenya ‘the deteriorating quality of public education

y created demand for private alternatives’ (Baurer

et al., 2002).

Reasons given for this ‘mushrooming’ highlight

the low quality of government schools for the poor,

including problems of teacher absenteeism and lack

of teacher commitment. In government primary

schools in West Bengal it is reported that ‘teachers

do not teach’ and ‘teaching is the last priority for

the teachers’ (Rana et al., 2002, p. 64 and 67). The

Probe Team found that in their sample, only 53% of government schools was there any teaching going

on at all (The Probe Team, 1999). The Human

Development Report 2003 notes that in India and

Pakistan ‘poor households cited teacher absentee-

ism in public schools as their main reason for

choosing private ones.’ (UNDP, 2003, p. 112). A

comprehensive survey of teacher absenteeism con-

ducted by the World Bank in India (Kremer et al.,

2004) looked at a nationally representative sample

of 20 Indian states, involving 3750 schools.

Although public and private schools were investi-gated, like was not compared with like—urban and

rural government schools were compared with rural

private schools only. In government schools,

absenteeism rates were 25.2% in rural and 22.9%

in urban schools, while in the rural private schools,

absenteeism was about 22.8% (Kremer et al., 2004,

p. 5 and p. 9). In 257 government, mosque and

private schools in Pakistan there was an absence

rate of 20% when researchers physically checked the

attendance status of one randomly chosen teacher at

the school. In this same study the ‘official’ records

showed only an absence rate of 5% (Ali and Reed,

1994). Studies of government teacher absence in six

countries—Bangladesh, Ecuador, India, Indonesia,

Peru and Uganda—found teacher absence rates to

be between 11% and 27% (Chaudhury et al., 2004a;

Rogers et al., 2004, p.142; Akhamadi and Surya-

darma, 2000). A study in two rural districts of

Kenya found that government teachers were absent

nearly 30% of the time and present at school but

not physically in the classroom 12.4% of the

time (Glewwe et al., 2004). Studies from Papua

New Guinea and Zambia revealed absence rates of

15% and 17%, respectively (World Bank, 2004;

Habyarimana et al., 2004).

Public education for the poor is also reported to

suffer from inadequate conditions. One government

school highlighted by the World Development

Report 2004, in north Bihar, India, describe‘horrific’ conditions (World Bank 2003, p. 24).

Facilities in government primary schools in Calcut-

ta were reported ‘by no means satisfactory’ (Nam-

bissan, 2003, p. 20): of 11 primary schools only two

had safe drinking water for the children, nine had a

general toilet, and only five had a playground.

Listing major problems in their schools, head-

teachers included the lack of electricity, space and

furniture (p. 21). A study of 100 government

primary schools in Bangladesh found that 81%

had water, 39% electricity, 97% toilets, 76% a

playground and only 0.4% a library, while theaverage pupil–teacher ratio was 69:1. (Chaudhury et

al., 2004b). The Probe Team in India found that out

of 162 government primary schools, 59% had no

functional water supply, 89% had no toilets, and

only 23% had a library, 48% a playground. The

average pupil teacher ratio was 68:1 (The Probe

Team, 1999).

Finally, private schools in India provide (or

purport to provide) English medium instruction,

which is desired by parents; government schools

teach in state languages, not usually teachingEnglish until about Class 5 (Nambissan, 2003; De

et al., 2002). Moreover, in some countries public

schools have limited places, because of an increase

in the number of school-age population without an

increase in government spending (Rose, 2002;

Nwagwu, 1997).

However, whilst this literature indicates that one

of the reasons low-income parents send their

children to private schools is the perceived low

quality of public education, concerns are also

expressed about the quality of the private schools

to which parents turn as alternatives, especially

those that are not recognised by government. The

Oxfam Education Report, for instance, notes that

while ‘there is no doubting the appalling standard of

provision in public education systems’, the private

schools that poor parents are using instead are of

‘inferior quality’, offering ‘a low-quality service’

that will ‘restrict children’s future opportunities.’

(Watkins, 2000, p. 230). Nambissan (2003) notes

that in Calcutta, ‘the mushrooming of privately

managed unregulated pre-primary and primary

schoolsy

can have only deleterious consequences

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Tooley, P. Dixon / International Journal of Educational Development 27 (2007) 205–219206



for the spread of education in general and among

the poor in particular’ (p. 52), for the quality of the

private schools is ‘often suspect’ (p. 15, footnote 25).

Save the Children, although noting that poor

parents in Nepal and Pakistan identify ‘irregularity,

negligence and indiscipline of the teachers, largeclass sizes and a lower standard of English learning’

as ‘the reasons why they decided against public

schools’ (Save the Children UK, South and Central

Asia, 2002, p. 8), is concerned that the private

schools they opt for offer ‘an extremely low

standard of education’ (p. 13). Finally, Rose

(2002) asks why poor parents in sub-Saharan Africa

are paying ‘for poor quality education, when they

could be getting fee-free schooling in the state

sector’? (p. 16); ‘the quality of education received is

debatable’ in the private sector (p. 7). However, the

evidence given about poor quality private provision,and the relative quality of public and private

provision for the poor in these sources is limited—

either suggesting that ‘little hard evidence’ is

available (Watkins, 2000, p. 230), or basing the

conclusion on the observation that private schools

employ low paid teachers, in low-quality accom-

modation, without comparing what is on offer in

the government alternative.

Our two-and a half year study (April 2003–Dec

2005) aimed to contribute to the understanding of

private school provision for the poor, and itsrelative quality vis-a ` -vis government provision,

through research in selected low-income areas in

India (Delhi, Hyderabad and Mahbubnagar), Gha-

na, Nigeria, Kenya and China. This paper reports

on some of the findings from Delhi, India only. It is

particularly concerned with exploring some of the

assumptions made about the nature of private

schooling for low-income families, and in compar-

ing the inputs in these (including facilities, teacher

commitment, etc.) with those in government schools

in the same areas. (Further research conducted

detailed comparisons of the achievement of students

in these schools, and pupil, parent and teacher

satisfaction, reported elsewhere).

2. Method

The research reported here, conducted during

October 2004, consisted of two main parts: a census

of schools and survey of inputs, aimed to discover

the extent of private schools in selected low-income

areas and to compare their inputs with government

schools serving the same populations.

In India, school management type is of three

kinds: government, private aided and private

unaided. Government schools are funded and

managed by some level of government, state or

local. Private aided schools are privately managed,

but usually have 100% of teacher salaries, plusother expenses, funded by government. Private

unaided schools are entirely privately managed

and privately funded. Private unaided schools are

of two types, recognised and unrecognised. The

former have purportedly met the regulatory require-

ments of the state. Unrecognised schools are in

effect operating in the informal sector of the

economy. They have either not applied for recogni-

tion, or have not succeeded in gaining recognition

from the government. The research was interested in

investigating all these school types.

After consultation with government officials andnon-government organisations working in the city,

the census was conducted in North Shahdara, East

Delhi, reported to be one of the poorest areas of the

city.1 North Shahdara covers an area of 40 km2, but

only the ‘‘notified slums’’ (according to the Census

of India, 2001) were researched, estimated to cover

about half this area. Permission was granted by

government officials for the research to be con-

ducted. A team of 20 researchers recruited from a

local non-government organisation were trained in

methods of gaining access to schools, the use of aninterview schedule for school managers and head-

teachers, and an observation schedule, which was

trialled to ensure reliability of observations made.

Given that we were particularly interested in finding

‘unrecognised’ private unaided schools, which are,

by definition, not on any official list, the researchers

were asked to physically visit every street and

alleyway in the area, during the morning of a

school day (except where it was indicated that a

school was operating in shifts, in which case they

returned to this school in the afternoon too),

looking for all schools, primary and secondary.

(Nursery-only schools were excluded from the

study, as were non-formal education provision,

such as learning centres and after-school clubs).

Government lists were used to check that all

government, private aided and recognised private

unaided schools were found.

When a school was located, the researcher called

unannounced and asked for a brief interview with

the headteacher or school manager, taking about

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1http://www.pratham.org/documents/northshahdara.doc.

J. Tooley, P. Dixon / International Journal of Educational Development 27 (2007) 205–219 207

http://www.pratham.org/documents/northshahdara.doc

http://www.pratham.org/documents/northshahdara.doc



10 minutes. After this, the researchers asked to

make a school visit, where they checked the facilities

available in the school against a short check-list of

facilities, and visited Class 4, to observe the activity

of the teacher. This visit was made when a normal

lesson was timetabled—the researchers were in-structed to wait until such a lesson was scheduled if

there were other activities (assembly, break, sports,

etc.) taking place.

The total number of schools located (including

schools operating in shifts) was 265; in all schools

the researcher was able to ask at least some

of the questions on the short interview schedule.

Similarly, the researchers were able to answer

at least one of the questions on the observation

schedule in all 265 schools. (The tables below

indicate the exact numbers of observations

made for each question). Data discussed in Section3 below came from the interview, while data

discussed in Section 4 came from the observation

schedule.

In addition, a stratified random sample of 146

schools was selected, after stratifying the schools

into approximate size bands and three management

categories: private unaided (unrecognised), private

unaided (recognised), and government (ignoring for

these purposes the small number of private aided

schools). (Table 1). This sample was primarily used

to elicit further data on academic performance of children, background variables, and satisfaction

levels (reported elsewhere). However, the discussion

of philanthropy and teacher salaries used data from

this stratified sample.

3. Results: census of schools

The main aim of the survey was to gauge the

extent of private provision, and to explore some

facets of the private unaided schools to increase

understanding of this sector.

3.1. Proportion of schools by management type

The survey team found a total of 265 schools in

the slum areas of North Shahdara. Of these, 26.8%

(71 schools) were government, 7.2% (19 schools)

private aided, and the rest—66% of the total (175schools)—private unaided schools. That is, a large

majority of schools is private unaided. Of these, the

largest number is recognised , (102 schools or 38.5%

of the total), while 73 private unaided schools were

unrecognised (27.5% of the total). Hence, there are

more unrecognised private unaided schools than there

are government schools (Table 2). This figure must

be taken as indicating a lower bound on the

numbers of private unrecognised schools, as we

cannot be sure we found all unrecognised private

unaided schools, as there were obviously no official

lists with which to compare our findings.

3.2. Proportion of pupils by management type

The researchers asked school managers or head-

teachers for the number of children enrolled in the

primary and secondary sections of the school,

checking this against the register, but not physically

checking this against pupils in the school. In the 265

schools, it was reported that 137,493 children

attended. Breaking down this information bymanagement type, we find that 60.4% of all children

were at government schools, 3.7% at private aided

schools, 27.2% of children at recognised private

unaided schools, and 8.8% of children at unrecog-

nised private unaided schools (Table 3). Three

caveats must be made here. First, there is the

reported propensity of government and private

aided schools to exaggerate enrolment, as there

are clear financial and job security incentives to

claim larger enrolment than is actually the case

(Kingdon, 1996; Kingdon and Dre ` ze, 1998). Sec-

ond, school managers and headteachers from both

public and private schools informed us of possible

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Schools in stratified random sample, by management type

Number of schools % of school type located in North Shahdara

Government 35 (24%) 49.3

Private unaided unrecognised 58 (39.7%) 79.5

Private unaided recognised 53 (36.3%) 52.0

Total 146 (100.0%) 55.1




‘‘double counting’’ of pupils. Many children, we

were informed, are enrolled in both government and

private schools, in order to benefit from mid-day

meals in government schools—children we were told

go to private schools in the morning, and then go to

government school for the mid-day meal. This hadthe additional benefit that children are able to take

examinations as a government, rather than private,

school pupil—which was particularly valuable if

children were enrolled at unrecognised private

schools. Third, again we note that all unrecognised

private unaided schools may not have been located

by the researchers. For all these reasons, it is

suggested that the data here may underestimate the

true proportion in private unaided, especially

unrecognised, schools.

3.3. Gender of pupils

Researchers asked schools for their student

numbers by gender. It was reported overall that a

higher percentage of girls than boys was in school,

with the average school having 46.5% boys and

53.5% girls. However, more girls were reported in

government schools than boys, (60.4% girls and

39.6%). In each of the other three school types,

more boys attend than girls—in private aided

schools, there were 55.8% boys, private unaided

unrecognised 57.5% boys and private unaided

recognised 56.9% boys (Table 4).

3.4. Teachers and pupil– teacher ratio

Researchers obtained data on the number of

teachers from 259 of the schools, by asking for this

information of the school manager or headteacher.

The total number of teachers was 3511, with 51.3%

working in private unaided schools, 5.2% in private

aided schools, and 43.5% in government schools.

For the 259 schools reporting both their number of

children and teaching staff, we calculate an average

pupil–teacher ratio of 32.8 to 1. This was highest in

the government schools (54.7:1), followed by private

recognised unaided schools (26.1:1), then private

aided (23.4:1) and lowest in the unrecognisedprivate unaided schools (22.7:1) (Table 5).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Management type of schools

Frequency Percent

Government 71 26.8

Private aided 19 7.2

Private unrecognised 73 27.5

Private recognised 102 38.5

Total 265 100.0

Table 3

Pupil enrolment by management type

Number of

children in school

type

Number of

schools reporting

Mean number of

children in each

school

Std. deviation % of total number

of students

Government 829,94 71 1168.93 1003.426 60.4

Private aided 5108 19 268.84 244.902 3.7

Private unrecognised 12,038 73 164.90 135.467 8.8

Private recognised 37,353 102 366.21 538.843 27.2

Total 137,493 265 518.84 740.908 100.0

Table 4

Gender of pupils by management type

Numbers reported % Enrolment

Government

Boys 328,46 39.6

Girls 50,148 60.4

Private aided Boys 2848 55.8

Girls 2260 44.2

Private unaided unrecognised

Boys 6926 57.5

Girls 5112 42.5

Private unaided recognised

Boys 21,272 56.9

Girls 16,081 43.1

Total

Boys 63,892 46.5

Girls 73,601 53.5




3.5. Scope of schools

Over one quarter of government schools are

primary-only schools, with just over an additional

half being nursery and primary providers. Around

10% provide primary and secondary education and

just over 10% provide all sections. The private aided

schools are mainly nursery and primary schools

(89.5%). For private unrecognised schools only

1.4% provide primary and secondary, the remaining

being primary and nursery providers. Some private

recognised provide all sections (8.8%).

3.6. Establishment of schools

Epithets such as ‘mushrooming’ and ‘fly-by-

nights’ used to describe private schools implies that

such schools are in general newly established. Our

data suggest that this is not entirely true. The mean

year of establishment for private unaided unrecog-

nised schools was reported as 1998; for private

unaided recognised schools the average year of

establishment was 1993. The mode year of establish-

ment was 2000 and 1995, respectively. While the

unrecognised schools are certainly newer than their

recognised counterparts (which themselves are new-

er than the government schools), they are certainly

not all recently established. Table 6 gives the overall

figures for all schools, tabulated in intervals of 5

years.

3.7. Medium of instruction

The literature above noted that parents may

prefer private unaided schools because they are

English medium: our results confirmed a significant

difference between private and government schools

in their medium of instruction. Of the total 265

schools, 27.2% reported that they were English

medium only, 42.3% Hindi medium only, and the

remaining 30.6% English and Hindi medium.

Disaggregated into management types, we find

47.1% of recognised private unaided and 20.5% of

unrecognised private unaided schools reported they

were English medium, compared to only 2.8% of

government schools and 36.8% private aided

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Pupil teacher ratio in each school management type

Management type Number of schools reporting Mean pupil-teacher ratio Std. deviation

Government 71 54.65 29.91

Private aided 18 23.40 10.34

Private unrecognised 69 22.73 8.78

Private recognised 101 26.07 10.77

Total 259 32.83 22.30

Table 6

Age of schools by management type

Age of school Total

2004–2000 1999–1995 1994–1990 1989–1985 1984 or older

Government 1 6 10 44 61

1.6% 9.8% 16.4% 72.1% 100.0%

Private aided 5 6 4 2 2 19

26.3% 31.6% 21.1% 10.5% 10.5% 100.0%

Private unrecognised 33 23 9 2 1 68

48.5% 33.8% 13.2% 2.9% 1.5% 100.0%

Private recognised 14 30 35 9 13 101

13.9% 29.7% 34.7% 8.9% 12.9% 100.0%

Total 52 60 54 23 60 249

20.9% 24.1% 21.7% 9.2% 24.1% 100.0%




schools. The majority of government schools were

Hindi medium (80.3%). Many of the private

unrecognised schools are Hindi medium (45.2%)

or provide both Hindi and English medium streams

(34.2%).

3.8. Fees in private unaided schools

The private unaided schools were found to charge

predominantly monthly fees. The researchers asked

school managers for details of these fees, checking

these where possible against written fee charges.

There is a statistically significant difference in the

fees charged in unrecognised and recognised

schools, with the former consistently lower than

the latter, at each level. For example, for pre-

primary grade, mean fees in recognised private

unaided schools are Rs. 190.25 (£2.442) per month,

compared to Rs. 92.55 (£1.19) per month in the

unrecognised schools. At primary grade, the samefigures are Rs. 227.60 (£2.92) compared to Rs.

124.45 (£1.60). The median figures may be a more

useful figure for comparison, given that a small

number of schools were found to be charging higher

fees than others. At the primary level, these were Rs.

100 (£1.28) for unrecognised and Rs. 192.50 (£2.47)

for recognised schools.

The minimum wage for Delhi is set at Rs. 90.00

(£1.15) per day (2001 figures, Labour Bureau,

Government of India, 2005) which translates to

about Rs. 2160 (£27.69) per month (assuming 24days work per month). That is, the median fees for

unrecognised schools are about 5% of the monthly

wage for a breadwinner on the minimum wage,

while recognised school fees are about 9%.

3.9. Private school philanthropy

However, not all students pay these fees. A

notable feature of the private unaided schools is

that, although they require fee incomes to survive,

they also offer free or concessionary seats to

children. We explored this issue with the smaller

number of private unaided schools in the stratified

random sample. The researchers asked the school

manager how many students were admitted to the

school with free or concessionary seats, and

triangulated the results with questions on the

parents, questionnaire. Of the 111 private unaided

schools participating in this part of the research, 94school managers gave information about the

number of free and concessionary places. Of schools

giving information, 58% of the unrecognised and

50% of the recognised private unaided schools offer

free places to some students in their schools.

Regarding concessionary places, 46% of the un-

recognised and 48% of the recognised private

unaided schools offer these. (In both cases, the

difference between school types was not statistically

significant).

The total number of free seats given was stated as1045 (591 in unrecognised and 454 in recognised

private unaided schools), while the total number of

concessionary places was 1184 (409 in unrecognised

and 775 in recognised private unaided schools).

That is, in these schools, 10% of all places were

provided either free of charge or at a concessionary

rate À5% free and 5% concessionary. Unrecognised

schools were slightly more generous in this regard

than recognised schools—offering 8% of seats free,

compared to 3% in the recognised schools (Table 7).

3.10. Teacher salaries

We also explored the issue of teacher salaries with

the Class 5 teacher from each of the stratified

random sample of schools. The average monthly

salary of a full-time teacher in a government school

was reported to be Rs. 10,072, compared to Rs.

1360 in unrecognised and Rs. 3627 in recognised

private unaided schools. The average salaries in

government schools are more than seven times

higher than in the unrecognised, and more than two

and a half times those in the recognised private

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 7

Number and % of free and concessionary seats in private unaided schools

Total seats Free seats % of free seats Concessionary seats % of concessionary seats

Private unrecognised 7591 591 8 409 5

Private recognised 14,551 454 3 775 5

22,142 1045 5 1184 5

2£1 ¼ Rs.78/- (11th October 2005 rate).




unaided schools. However, class sizes are smallest in

unrecognised private and largest in government

schools, so computing the unit cost per pupil gives a

more valid comparison (Table 8). Using reported

Class 5 sizes from the sample schools, we find that

teacher salary per pupil is roughly equivalent in

unrecognised and recognised private schools, thelarger salaries in the latter being compensated for by

the larger class sizes. In the government schools,

however, the unit cost was 2.44 times higher.

4. Results: survey of inputs

The survey of inputs compared the teaching

activity and facilities across the different school

management types.

4.1. Teacher activity

The most important point of comparison is

perhaps the amount of teaching activity that is

going on in government and private schools. The

researchers were asked to observe, without prior

notice, the Class 4 teacher (or nearest grade teacher)

when there was timetabled teaching supposed to be

going on. Teaching was defined as when the teacher

was present in the classroom, supervising the class

in some activity, including supervising pupils read-

ing aloud or doing their own work, or when pupils

themselves were leading the class at the blackboard,

under supervision of the teacher. Non-teaching

activities are defined as when the teacher is not

present in the classroom when he or she should have

been, although the teacher was present in the

school. This included being in the staffroom,

sleeping, eating or talking with other teachers, or

engaged in some other non-teaching activity around

the school.

Teacher absenteeism was found to be lowest in

government schools (5.6% of the government

teachers were absent, compared to 9.7% and 7.9%

in unrecognised and recognised private unaided

schools, respectively); however, teachers were teach-

ing far less in government than private schools: In

only 38% of government schools was the teacher

teaching, compared to 72% in the private unrecog-

nised and 69% in the private recognised. 56% of the

teachers in the class visited in the government

schools were carrying out a non-teaching activity

when they were supposed to be teaching their class

(Table 9).

4.2. School building and playgrounds

The researcher was asked to note whether the

majority of the teaching was taking place in a

‘pucca’ building, that is, a proper brick or stone

building with a tiled roof, or in some other

construction, such as a veranda, a tent, in open

spaces, or in temporary buildings. They also noted

whether the school had a playground available—

although this could be of any size, not necessarily

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 8

Teacher salaries per pupil

Management type Mean monthly salary

of full-time teacher at

Grade 4 (Rs.)

Mean class size Mean monthly salary

per pupil

Ratio of unit costs

(private unrecognised

base)

Government 10,071.76 42.37 237.71 2.44

Private unrecognised 1360.33 13.96 97.45 1.00

Private recognised 3626.70 37.15 97.62 1.00

Table 9

Activity of the class teacher by management type

Activity of the teacher observed Total

Teaching Non-teaching Absent

Government 27 40 4 7138.0% 56.3% 5.6% 100.0%

Private aided 12 5 2 19

63.2% 26.3% 10.5% 100.0%

Private unrecognised 52 13 7 72

72.2% 18.1% 9.7% 100.0%

Private recognised 70 23 7.9% 101

69.3% 22.8% 8 100.0%

Total 161 81 21 263

61.2% 30.8% 8.0% 100.0%

Note: w2¼ 30:740, df ¼ 6, Significant, po0.001.




one meeting the regulatory specifications. All of the

private schools apart from one were operating in

‘pucca’ buildings, while 14% of the government

schools were not. Regarding the provision of

playgrounds, it was found that 70% of government

schools had a playground compared with only 5.3%

of private aided schools, 4.1% of private unrecog-

nised schools and 15.7% of private recognised

schools (Table 10).

4.3. School facilities

The researchers noted whether particular facilities

were available in the observed classroom, or

available for children around the school (in the

case of toilets, drinking water, tape recorders,

library and computers). Concerning three inputs,

there was no statistically significant differences

between school types (Table 11):

Blackboards and drinking water for children: For

both inputs, the great majority of government

and private unaided schools had a blackboard

and drinking water available for class 4. In both

cases, provision was 100% in private aided

schools.

Library for children’s use: Only a minority of

schools had a library for use by children—

ranging from 11% in private aided to 37% and

38% in recognised private unaided and govern-

ment schools, respectively.

Tape recorders available for teaching: the major-

ity of schools did not have tape recorders

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 10

School has a playground

Own playground Total

Available Unavailable

Government 49 21 7070.0% 30.0% 100.0%

Private aided 1 18 19

5.3% 94.7% 100.0%

Private unrecognised 3 70 73

4.1% 95.9% 100.0%

Private recognised 16 86 102

15.7% 84.3% 100.0%

Total 69 195 264

26.1% 73.9% 100.0%

Note: w2¼

98:

168, df ¼

3, Significant, po0.001.

T a

b l e 1 1

I n p u t s t o s c h o o l s , b y m a n a g e m e n t t y p e

B l a c k b o a r d a v a i l a b i l i t y a

D r i n k i n g w a t e r

b

L

i b r a r y f o r u s e b y c h i l d r e n c

T a p e r e c o r d e r s d

S e p a r a t e t o i l e t s f o

r b o y s a n d g i r l s e

A v a i l a b l e

U n a v

a i l a b l e

A v a i l a b l e

U n a v a i l a b l e A

v a i l a b l e

U n a v a i l a b l e

A v a i l a b l e


A v a i l a b l e


G o v e r n m e n t

6 4 ( 9 0 . 1 % )

7 ( 9 . 9 % )

6 2 ( 8 8 . 6 % )

8 ( 1 1 . 4 % ) 2

6 ( 3 7 . 7 % )

4 3 ( 6 2 . 3 % )

2 3 ( 3 2 . 9 % )

4 7 ( 6 7 . 1 % )

3 4 ( 7 9 . 1 % )

9 ( 2 0 . 9 % )

P r

i v a t e a i d e d

2 ( 1 1 . 1 % )

1 6 ( 8 8 . 9 % )

9 ( 5 2 . 9 % )

8 ( 4 7 . 1 % )

P U

A u n r e c o g n i s e d

7 0 ( 9 7 . 2 % )

2 ( 2 . 8 % )

7 0 ( 9 5 . 9 % )

3 ( 4 . 1 % )

2

2 ( 3 6 . 7 % )

3 8 ( 6 3 . 3 % )

1 4 ( 1 9 . 4 % )

5 8 ( 8 0 . 6 % )

1 1 ( 1 7 . 7 % )

5 1 ( 8 2 . 3 % )

P U

A r e c o g n i s e d

9 6 ( 9 4 . 1 % )

6 ( 5 . 9 % )

9 6 ( 9 4 . 1 % )

6 ( 5 . 9 % )

2

5 ( 2 7 . 8 % )

6 5 ( 7 2 . 2 % )

2 8 ( 2 7 . 7 % )

7 3 ( 7 2 . 3 % )

4 2 ( 4 5 . 7 % )

5 0 ( 5 4 . 3 % )

T o

t a l

2 3 0 ( 9 3 . 9 % )

1 5 ( 6 . 1 % )

2 2 8 ( 9 3 . 1 % )

1 7 ( 6 . 9 % )

7

5 ( 3 1 . 6 % )

1 6 2 ( 6 8 . 4 % )

6 5 ( 2 6 . 7 % )

1 7 8 ( 7 3 . 3 % )

9 6 ( 4 4 . 9 % )

1 1 8 ( 5 5 . 1 % )

a w 2 ¼

3 : 1 3 6 , d f ¼

2 , n o t s i g n i fi c a n t , p 4

0 . 1 .

b w 2 ¼

3 : 2 6 6 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

c w 2 ¼

5 : 9 9 3 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

d w 2 ¼

3 : 3 4 2 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

e w 2 ¼

3 9 :

2 4 9 , d f ¼

3 , s i g n i fi c a n t , p o 0 . 0 0 1 .




available in any school type—ranging from 67%

to 81% in government and private unaided

schools. (Only one private aided school had tape

recorders available for teaching).

For one input, government schools had superiorinputs to private unaided schools (Table 11):

Separate toilets for boys and girls (excluding

single sex schools): Only 46% of recognised and

18% of unrecognised private unaided have

separate toilets, compared with 79% of govern-

ment schools.

However, for the majority of inputs researched,

private unaided schools were superior in provision

to government schools (Table 12):

Desks: In 87% of recognised and 90% of

unrecognised private unaided and private aided

schools, desks were available in the classroom,

compared to only 67% of government class-

rooms. That is, one third of the government

classrooms did not have desks available.

Chairs or benches for children: In 87% of

recognised and 94% of unrecognised schools,

chairs or benches were available in the classroom,

compared to 69% of government schools and

79% of private aided schools; again, almost onethird of the government classrooms had no chairs

or benches for their children.

Fans: 75% of government classrooms had fans

(although in three of these classrooms, the

electricity was not functioning), compared with

93% of private unrecognised schools and 89%

private recognised schools. 94% of private aided

schools had fans.

Toilets for children: the majority of private

unaided and aided schools had toilet facilities

for the children—97% in unrecognised and 93%

in recognised. All private aided schools had

toilets for their children. However, only 80% of

government schools had toilets provided for

children’s use.

Computers for children’s use: About half of the

recognised private unaided schools had one or

more computers for the use of their students,

compared with 24% of unrecognised private

unaided schools and 21% of private aided, but

only 7% of government schools.

Electricity: Only 74% of government schools had

electricity available in the Class 4 classroom,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T a

b l e 1 2

F u

r t h e r i n p u t s t o s c h o o l s , b y m a n a g e m e n

t t y p e s

D e s k s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m a

C h

a i r s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m

b

F a n s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m c

C h i l d r e n ’ s t o i l e t s d

C

o m p u t e r f o r c h i l d r e n ’ s u s e e

E l e c t r i c i t y

i n t h e c l a s s r o o m

f

A v a i l a b l e

U n a v a i l a b l e A v

a i l a b l e

U n a v a i l a b l e A v a i l a b l e

U

n a v a i l a b l e A v a i l a b l e

U n a v a i l a b l e A

v a i l a b l e


A v a i l a b l e


G o v

4 7 ( 6 7 . 1 % ) 2 3 ( 3 2 . 9 % ) 4 9 ( 6 9 . 0 % ) 2 2 ( 3 1 . 0 % )

5 3 ( 7 4 . 6 % ) 1 8 ( 2 5 . 4 % )

5 7 ( 8 0 . 3 % ) 1 4 ( 1 9 . 7 % )

5 ( 7 . 1 % )

6 5 ( 9 2 . 9 % )

5 0 ( 7 3 . 5 % )

1 8 ( 2 6 . 5 % )

P A

1 7 ( 8 9 . 5 % )

2 ( 1 0 . 5 % ) 1 5 ( 7 8 . 9 % )

4 ( 2 1 . 1 % )

1 7 ( 9 4 . 4 % )

1 ( 5 . 6 % )

4 ( 2 1 . 1 % )

1 5 ( 7 8 . 9 % )

1 8 ( 9 4 . 7 % )

1 ( 5 . 3 % )

P U

A u n r e c

6 5 ( 9 0 . 3 % )

7 ( 9 . 7 % )

6 8 ( 9 4 . 4 % )

4 ( 5 . 6 % )

6 7 ( 9 3 . 1 % )

5 ( 6 . 9 % )

7 1 ( 9 7 . 3 % )

2 ( 2 . 7 % ) 1 7 ( 2 3 . 6 % )

5 5 ( 7 6 . 4 % )

6 4 ( 9 4 . 1 % )

4 ( 5 . 9 % )

P U

A r e c

8 7 ( 8 7 . 0 % ) 1 3 ( 1 3 . 0 % ) 8 8 ( 8 7 . 1 % ) 1 3 ( 1 2 . 9 % )

9 0 ( 8 9 . 1 % ) 1 1 ( 1 0 . 9 % )

9 5 ( 9 3 . 1 % )

7 ( 6 . 9 % ) 4 6 ( 4 6 . 0 % )

5 4 ( 5 4 . 0 % )

8 9 ( 8 9 . 0 % )

1 1 ( 1 1 . 0 % )

T o

t a l

2 1 6 ( 8 2 . 8 % ) 4 5 ( 1 7 . 2 % ) 2 2 0 ( 8 3 . 7 % ) 4 3 ( 1 6 . 3 % )

2 2 7 ( 8 6 . 6 % ) 3 5 ( 1 3 . 4 % ) 2 2 3 ( 9 0 . 7 % ) 2 3 ( 9 . 3 % ) 7 2 ( 2 7 . 6 % )

1 8 9 ( 7 2 . 4 % )

2 2 1 ( 8 6 . 7 % )

3 4 ( 1 3 . 3 % )

a w 2 ¼

1 6 :

6 7 7 , d f ¼

3 , s i g n i fi c a n t , p o 0 . 0 0 1 .

b w 2 ¼

1 8 :

4 5 5 , d f ¼

3 , s i g n i fi c a n t , p o 0 . 0

0 1 .

c w 2 ¼

1 2 :

8 6 1 , d f ¼

3 , s i g n i fi c a n t , p o 0 . 0 1 .

d w 2 ¼

1 3 :

5 1 4 , d f ¼

2 , s i g n i fi c a n t , p

¼ 0 . 0 1 ,

e w 2 ¼

3 2 :

5 9 4 , d f ¼

3 , s i g n i fi c a n t , p o 0 . 0 0 1 .

fw

2 ¼

1 4 :

9 6 5 , d f ¼

3 , s i g n i fi c a n t , p o 0 . 0 0 5




compared to 95% of the private aided, 94% of

the private unrecognised and 89% of the private

recognised schools.

Tables 13–15 show these inputs comparing

unrecognised and recognised private unaidedschools only, for consideration in the final section.

5. Conclusions and discussion

It is widely acknowledged that a low-cost private

education sector is now serving low-income families

in developing countries. In part, it is suggested that

this sector has emerged because of the low quality of

available government schools for the poor. How-

ever, there are also doubts raised about the

relatively quality of private provision for the poor,

although data on this aspect are patchy. This paper,reporting on a study from the slums of East Delhi,

explored the nature and extent of private schools

serving low-income families, and compared their

inputs to those in government schools.

It would have been valuable to have been able to

physically count the numbers of children present

within the schools, to gain more realistic estimates

of proportions in each management type. Further-

more, more than one unannounced visit would have

been useful to gauge the extent to which teachers

were teaching over a prolonged period, and acomprehensive survey of facilities within the school

conducted, rather than in just one classroom, to

make these findings more directly comparable with

other literature. However, these were beyond the

resources of this current study. Clearly, research on

the achievement levels of children in the different

school types, controlled for background variables,

and on satisfaction levels of pupils, parents and

teachers, would add to our understanding of the

relative quality of public and private provision for

the poor. The extended study explored these aspects

(see Tooley and Dixon, 2006, 2007). Notwithstand-

ing these limitations, however, the research reported

here suggests that a more balanced appraisal of the

contribution, or potential contribution, of private

unaided schools for the poor may be justified than

sometimes is found in the literature.

First, our study suggested that the sector is

certainly a significant provider for the poor. The

researchers conducted a census in the notified slums

of North Shahdara, one of the poorest parts of

Delhi, and found that 66% of the 265 primary and

secondary schools were private unrecognised, with

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T a

b l e 1 3

I n p u t s t o s c h o o l s ( 1 ) , p r i v a t e u n a i d e d s c h o o l s o n l y

A c t i v i t y o f t h e t e a c

h e r a

B l a c k b o a r d s i n t h

e c l a s s r o o m

b

W h e r e t h e m a j o r i t y o f

t e a c h i n g i s t a k i n g p l a c

e c

D e s k s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m

d

L i b r a r y e

T e a c h i n g

N o n - t e a c h i n g

A b s e n t

A v a i l a b l e


P u c c a b u i l d i n g

O t h e r

A v a i l a b l e

U n a v a i l a b l e A v a i l a b l e


P r

i v a t e u n r e c o g n i s e d

5 2 ( 7 2 . 2 % ) 1 3 ( 1

8 . 1 % )

7 ( 9 . 7 % )

7 0 ( 9 7 . 2 % )

2 ( 2 . 8 % )

7 3 ( 1 0 0 % )

0

6 5 ( 9 0 . 3 % )

7 ( 9 . 7 % )

2 2 ( 3 6

. 7 % )

3 8 ( 6 3 . 3 % )

P r

i v a t e r e c o g n i s e d

7 0 ( 6 9 . 3 % ) 2 3 ( 2

2 . 8 % )

8 ( 7 . 9 % )

9 6 ( 9 4 . 1 % )

6 ( 5 . 9 % )

1 0 1 ( 9 9 % )

1 ( 1 . 0

% )

8 7 ( 8 7 . 0 % ) 1 3 ( 1 3 . 0 % )

2 5 ( 2 7

. 8 % )

6 5 ( 7 2 . 2 % )

T o

t a l

1 2 2 ( 7 0 . 5 % ) 3 6 ( 2

0 . 8 % )

1 5 ( 8 . 7 % ) 1 6 6 ( 9 5 . 4 % )

8 ( 4 . 6 % )

1 7 4 ( 9 9 . 4 % )

1 ( 0 . 6

% )

1 5 2 ( 8 8 . 4 % ) 2 0 ( 1 1 . 6 % )

4 7 ( 3 1

. 3 % ) 1 0 3 ( 6 8 . 7 % )

a w 2 ¼

0 : 6 5 7 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

b w 2 ¼

0 : 9 2 7 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

c w 2 ¼

0 : 7 2 0 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

d w 2 ¼

0 : 4 3 8 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

e w 2 ¼

1 : 3 2 2 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .




more unrecognised private unaided than government

schools (28% compared to 27%). Given that we

cannot be sure we found all the private unrecog-

nised schools, this gives a lower bound for private

sector involvement. The private unrecognised

schools, however, were reported to be much smallerthan government schools, although it is recognised

that there are difficulties with reported enrolment

figures from government (and private aided)

schools. Nevertheless, even on figures given to the

researchers, private unaided schools make up nearly

40% of enrolment. These private schools are not all

recently established, as some of the criticisms seem

to imply. The mean year of establishment was 1998

and 1993 for unrecognised and recognised private

unaided schools, respectively.

Second, one of the criticisms of the existence of

private schools is that parents prefer to enrol theirboys rather than girls in them, so their presence

exacerbates gender inequality (see e.g., Save the

Children UK, South and Central Asia, 2002, p. 7).

Our research confirmed that this was the case too in

East Delhi, with around 57–58% male enrolment in

the private unaided schools, although this was

comparable to the percentage in private aided

schools, which are heavily government subsidised

(a subsidy supposedly justified in part because of

their contribution to equity, Kingdon and Muzam-

mil, 2003; World Bank, 2002a, b).Third, we were able to compare some of the

inputs to private and government schools. This gave

a mixed picture. Regarding teaching activity, our

survey showed considerably higher activity in

private unaided than government schools. When

researchers called unannounced on classrooms, the

percentage of teachers teaching in private recog-

nised schools was 69%, and 72% in private

unrecognised schools, compared to only 38% in

the government schools. However, teacher absen-

teeism rates were higher in private unaided than

government schools, and in any case, our findings

suggest that although private unaided school

teachers showed higher teaching commitment than

government teachers, there is considerable room for

improvement in private unaided schools. In this

regard it is interesting to note that there is no

statistically significant difference between private

unaided unrecognised and recognised schools in the

levels of teaching and absenteeism (see Table 13).

That is, government regulations and associated

inspections do not seem to impact on raising

standards in this regard. Indeed, only on four

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T a

b l e 1 4

I n p u t s t o s c h o o l s ( 2 ) , p r i v a t e u n a i d e d s c h o o l s o n l y

F a n s i n t h e c l a s s r

o o m a

C h a i r s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m

b

E l e c t r i c i t y i n t h e c l a s s r o o m c

D r i n k i n g w a t e r

d

T o i l e t s e

A v a i l a b l e


A v a i l a b l e


A v a i l a b l e


A v a i l a b l e


A v a i l a b l e


P r

i v a t e u n r e c o g n i s e d

6 7 ( 9 3 . 1 % )

5

( 6 . 9 % )

6 8 ( 9 4 . 4 % )

4 ( 5 . 6 % )

6 4 ( 9 4 . 1 % )

4 ( 5 . 9 % )

7 0 ( 9 5 . 9 % )

3 ( 4 . 1 % )

7 1 ( 9 7 . 3 % )

2 ( 2 . 7 % )

P r

i v a t e r e c o g n i s e d

9 0 ( 8 9 . 1 % )

1 1

( 1 0 . 9 % )

8 8 ( 8 7 . 1 % )

1 3 ( 1 2 . 9 % )

8 9 ( 8 9 . 0 % )

1 1 ( 1 1 . 0 % )

9 6 ( 9 4 . 1 % )

6 ( 5 . 9 % )

9 5 ( 9 3 . 1 % )

7 ( 6 . 9 % )

T o

t a l

1 5 7 ( 9 0 . 8 % )

1 6

( 9 . 2 % )

1 5 6 ( 9 0 . 2 % )

1 7 ( 9 . 8 % )

1 5 3 ( 9 1 . 1 % )

1 5 ( 8 . 9 % )

1 6 6 ( 9 4 . 9 % )

9 ( 5 . 1 % )

1 6 6 ( 9 4 . 9 % )

9 ( 5 . 1 % )

a w 2 ¼

0 : 7 8 0 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

b w 2 ¼

2 : 5 3 9 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

c w 2 ¼

1 : 3 0 4 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

d w 2 ¼

0 : 2 7 4 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .

e w 2 ¼

1 : 4 8 3 , d f ¼


0 . 1 .




inputs was there any significant difference between

recognised and unrecognised private unaidedschools—tape recorders, computers, separate toilets

for boys and girls and playgrounds, two of which

are not subject to government regulation—suggest-

ing that, in general, it is not government regulation

and inspections that leads to higher quality provi-

sion (Tables 14 and 15).

On other inputs, private unaided schools ap-

peared at least as good, or better than their

government counterparts. Reported pupil–teacher

ratios were much more favourable to private

unaided than government schools—highest in gov-ernment schools, (at 55:1), more than twice as high

as in both recognised and unrecognised private

unaided schools (23:1). On four inputs, (the avail-

ability of blackboards, drinking water, library and

tape recorders), government and private unaided

schools offered a comparable range of facilities. For

six other inputs (desks, chairs, fans, toilets, compu-

ters and electricity), private unaided schools, in-

cluding unrecognised ones, offered these facilities

significantly more often than government schools.

Only on two inputs—playgrounds and separate

toilets for boys and girls (single-sex schools ex-

cluded) did government schools have superiority

over private unaided schools.

Three ways forward are suggested by these

findings. First, concerning the gender imbalance in

private unaided schools, one possible solution here,

if attendance at private unaided schools is consid-

ered to be a valuable good that is currently

dominated by boys, might be to consider the

introduction of targeted vouchers, aimed at girls.

UNDP (2003) explores this as a possible way

forward: ‘To ensure that children from poor

families unable to pay school fees are able to attend

private schools, governments could finance theireducation through vouchers.’ (UNDP, 2003,

p. 115). The report gives examples of successful

schemes in Colombia and Pakistan, the latter aimed

at disadvantaged girls, that may be transferable to

the Indian context. To a not insignificant extent, we

found that the private schools themselves were

already offering their own version of targeted

vouchers—on average 10% of all places were

provided free or at a concessionary rate—although

further research is required to ascertain to whom

these were offered, and whether concern for girls’enrolment featured. (Other research has indicated

that gender was one factor in the distribution of

scholarships in other parts of India, Tooley and

Dixon, 2005a). Ways of extending or enhancing

such informal schemes might be considered a

valuable way forward.

Second, concerning the variable standards in

private unaided schools, others have argued that

government regulation and inspection needs to be

strengthened in recognised private unaided schools,

and unrecognised schools brought under this

regulatory remit (by ensuring that unrecognised

schools become recognised), (see for example,

Nambissan, 2003; Rose, 2002). However, other

research has suggested that, in Hyderabad, India,

government recognition may be achieved through

unofficial payments or bribes to inspectors,

rather than achieving regulatory standards (Tooley

and Dixon, 2005b). If this is also the case in Delhi—

and other sources suggest that the corruption

found in Hyderabad is likely to be repeated

across India (corruption is ‘endemic’ in India, Dre ` ze

and Sen, 2002, p. 53, which is ranked amongst

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 15

Inputs to schools (3), private unaided schools only—significant differences

Own playgrounda Separate toilets for boys

and girls where necessarybTape recordersc School computers used by

childrend

Available Unavailable Available Unavailable Available Unavailable Available Unavailable

Private

unrecognised

3 (4.1%) 70 (95.9%) 11(17.7%) 51 (82.3%) 14 (38.9%) 22 (61.1%) 17 (23.6%) 55 (76.4%)

Private recognised 16 (15.7%) 86 (84.3%) 42 (45.7%) 50 (54.3%) 28 (65.1%) 15 (34.9%) 46 (46.0%) 54 (54.0%)

Total 19 (10.9%) 156 (89.1%) 53 (34.4%) 101 (65.6%) 42 (53.2%) 37 (46.8%) 63 (36.6%) 109 (63.4%)

aw

2¼ 5:892, df ¼ 1, significant, po0.05.

bw


cw


dw2¼ 9.040, df ¼ 1, significant, po0.01.




the top ten most corrupt nations in the world

Mitra, 1998, Qp. 38), then this may not be an

immediate way of raising standards in private

unaided schools. Third, an alternative approach

(raised in Tooley and Dixon, 2005b), would be to

consider how private unaided schools could bebrought within systems of self-regulation and

accreditation to assist in school improvement, and

so enhance the learning experiences of students

within them.

References

Aggarwal, Y., 2000. Public and Private Partnership in Primary

Education in India: A Study of Unrecognised Schools in

Haryana. National Institute of Educational Planning and

Administration, New Delhi.Akhamadi, S.U., Suryadarma, D., 2000. When teachers are

absent: Where do they go and what is the impact on students?

SMERU Field Report. SMERU Research Institute,

Indonesia.

Alderman, H., Orazem, P.F., Paterno, E.M., 2001. School

quality, school cost and the public/private school choices of

low-income households in Pakistan. Journal of Human

Resources 36 (2), 304–326.

Alderman, H., Kim, J., Orazem, P.F., 2003. Design, evaluation,

and sustainability of private schools for the poor: the Pakistan

urban and rural fellowship school experiment. Economics of

Education Review 22, 265–274.

Ali, M., Reed, T., 1994. A school and Parental Survey of Book

Provision Issues in NWFP. International Book Development

Ltd.

Baurer, A., Brust, F., Hybbert, J., 2002. Entrepreneurship: a case

study in African enterprise growth, expanding private

education in Kenya: Mary Okelo and Makini Schools.

Columbia Business School. Chazen Web Journal of Interna-

tional Business, Fall.

Census of India, 2001. Primary Census Abstract: Haryana, Delhi

and Rajasthan, vol. 2. Government of India, Delhi.

Chaudhury, N., Hammer, J., Kremer, M., Muralidharan, K.,

Halsey Rogers, F., 2004a. Provider Absence in Schools and

Health Clinics (Available from: /http://worldbank.orgS

accessed October 2004].

Chaudhury, N., Hammer, J., Kremer, M., Mularidharan, K.,Rogers, H., 2004b. Roll Call Teacher Absence in Bangladesh.

World Bank, Washington, DC.

De, A., Majumdar, M., Samson, M., Noronha, C., 2002. Private

schools and universal elementary education. In: Govinda, R.

(Ed.), India Education Report: A Profile of Basic Education.

Oxford University Press, Oxford and New Delhi,

pp. 131–150.

Dre ` ze, J., Sen, A., 2002. India: Development and Participation,

second ed. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, Oxford.

Glewwe, P., Illias, N., Kremer, M., 2004. Teaching incentives.

National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper.

Government of India, 2005. Labour Bureau, Minimum Wages,

(Available from /http://labourbureau.nic.in/wagetb/htmS)

accessed 10.10.05.

Habyarimana, J., Das, J., Dercon, S., Krishnan, P., 2004. Sense

and Absence: Absenteeism and Learning in Zambian Schools.

World Bank, Washington, DC.

Kingdon, G., 1996. Student achievement and teacher pay.

Discussion Paper, No. 74, STICERD, London School of

Economics, August.

Kingdon, G., Dre ` ze, J., 1998. Biases in educational statistics. TheHindu, 6 March.

Kingdon, G., Muzammil, M., 2003. The Political Economy of

Education in India: Teacher Politics in Uttar Pradesh. Oxford

University Press, New Delhi, Oxford, New York.

Kremer, M., Mularidharan, K., Chaudhury, N., Hammer, J.,

Rogers, H., 2004. Teacher Absence in India (Available

from: /http://econ.worldbank.org/files/36660_Absenteeism.

India.Schools.June.2004.pdf S accessed October 2004).

Mitra, C., 1998. The Corrupt Society: The Crimilization of India

from Independence to the 1990s. Viking Penguin India, New

Delhi, India.

Nambissan, G.B., 2003. Educational deprivation and primary

school provision: a study of providers in the city of Calcutta.

IDS Working Paper 187, Institute of Development Studies.Nwagwu, C.C., 1997. The environment of crises in the Nigerian

Education System. Comparative Education 33 (1), 87–95.

Rana, K., Rafique, A., Sengupta, A., 2002. The Delivery of

Primary Education: A Study in West Bengal. TLM Books and

Pratichi (India) Trust, Delhi.

Rogers, H.F., Lopez-Calix, J., Chaudhury, N., Hammer, J.,

Cordoba, N., Kremer, M., Muralidharan, K., 2004. Teacher

absence and incentives in primary education: results from a

national teacher tracking survey in Ecuador. Ecuador:

Creating Fiscal Space for Poverty Reduction: A Fiscal

Management and Public Expenditure Review vol. 2,

136–162 (Chapter 6).

Rose, P., 2002. Is the non-state education sector serving the needs

of the poor? Evidence from East and Southern Africa. Paper

prepared for DfID Seminar in preparation for 2004, World

Development Report.

Rose, P., 2003. From the Washington to the Post-Washington

Consensus: the influence of international agendas on educa-

tion policy and practice in Malawi. Globalisation, Societies

and Education 1 (1), 67–86.

Save the Children UK, South and Central Asia, 2002. Private

sector involvement in education: a perspective from Nepal

and Pakistan. Submission to ‘‘The Private Sector as Service

Provider and its Role in Implementing Child Rights’’, Office

of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 20

September.

The Probe Team, 1999. Public Report on Basic Education inIndia. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New Delhi.

Tooley, J., Dixon, P., 2005a. An inspector calls: the regulation of

‘budget’ private schools in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,

India. International Journal of Educational Development 25,

269–285.

Tooley, J., Dixon, P., 2005b. Is there a conflict between

commercial gain and concern for the poor? Evidence from

private schools for the poor in India and Nigeria. Economic

Affairs 25 (2), 20–27.

Tooley, J., Dixon, P., 2006. ‘De Facto’ privatisation of education

and the poor: implications of a study from sub-Saharan

Africa and India, Compare 36(4).

Tooley, J., Dixon, P., 2007. Private education for low income

families: Research from a global research project. In:

ARTICLE IN PRESS


http://worldbank.org/

http://labourbureau.nic.in/wagetb/htm

http://econ.worldbank.org/files/36660_Absenteeism.India.Schools.June.2004.pdf




http://labourbureau.nic.in/wagetb/htm

http://worldbank.org/



Srivastava, P., Walford, G. (Eds.), Private Schooling in Less

Economically Developed Countries: Asian and African

Perspective. Symposium Books, Didcot.

UNDP, 2003. Human Development Report 2003. United

Nations Development Programme, New York.

Watkins, K., 2000. The Oxfam Education Report. Oxfam in

Great Britain, Oxford.World Bank, 2002a. India, Karnataka: secondary education and

the new agenda for economic growth. Human Development

Sector Unit, South Asia Region, Report No. 24208-IN,

June 13.

World Bank, 2002b. India, Karnataka: financing education in the

context of economic restructuring. Human Development

Sector Unit, South Asia Region, Report No. 24207-IN,

June 13.

World Bank, 2003. Making Services Work for Poor People:

World Development Report 2004. World Bank/Oxford

University Press, Washington, DC/Oxford.World Bank, 2004. Papua New Guinea: Public Expenditure

and Service Delivery (Discussion Draft). World Bank,

Washington, DC.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


delhi schools research

Documents