Upload
bryga
View
47
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What do we know about school bursaries? Targeting evidence from Kenya Katie Conn Africa Impact Evaluation Initiative (AIM), World Bank. School bursaries are an excellent example of the need for impact evaluation Potential questions that can be answered with an impact evaluation: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Second Cross-country Workshop of theAfrica Programs for Educationand AIDS Impact EvaluationDakar, December 2008
What do we know about
school bursaries?Targeting evidence from Kenya
Katie ConnAfrica Impact Evaluation Initiative (AIM), World Bank
School bursaries are an excellent example of the need for impact evaluation
Potential questions that can be answered with an impact evaluation: What amount of bursary is necessary to
increase enrollment? What is impact of schooling on a student’s
future earnings or health outcomes? What is the best way to target bursaries?
What do we need to know?
Bursary Targeting
Merit bursaries Relatively easy to assign Disproportionately benefit wealthier students
Bursaries targeting the poor Need-based bursaries more equitable Difficult to target the poorest of the poor Evidence from the Africa Program for
Education Impact Evaluation on bursaries: Kenya
Kenyan Context
June 2007: Ministry of Education officials met with technical experts (Pascaline Dupas and the Poverty Action Lab) in Abuja, Nigeria, and decided to evaluate targeting of bursaries
January 2008: Government announced secondary school subsidy of $160 per student Intended to cover the cost of day school
April 2008: Still, 20% of eligible students in Western Kenya did not enroll in 2008 Most cited insufficient means
November 2007 – May 2008 : Targeting Exercise
Kenya’s traditional secondary school bursary targeting system
Current system of allocating bursaries Proportionate amount allocated to political
constituencies (districts, more or less) They distribute applications and bursary
amounts as they wish Anecdotes: Not wanting to favor a single
child, committees spread funding across so many children that it fails to be useful
Further concern: favoritism
The Reform: a new form of targeting
Ministry of Education two-part form: Class 8 teacher Form & Student Guardian Form
Participatory Meetings with School Community Participatory rural appraisals with School
Management Committee & teachers only PRAs with SMC, teachers, and parents of class 8
students(Facilitated by locally based agency: IPA)
Exhaustive household survey (Gold standard? ) Implemented by IPA
The evaluation
Using Poverty Maps select 36 poorest “locations” in Western Kenya
Randomly select 1 school from each “location.” Randomly split them into 2 groups
Then, with this information in hand, checked to see who actually went on to go to school in 2008
Group Household Survey
Standard 8 Form PRA Ranking Session Participants Ex-Post Data:
MoE/ CDF Bursary Recipient Info. & Enrollment Status
1 Yes Yes SMC + Teachers Yes
2 Yes Yes SMC + Teachers + Parents Yes
Results (preliminary)
Neither the MoE form measuring assets nor the detailed household survey did a good job of predicting who would not attend without a scholarship Need more than assets to identify the
needy!
The PRAs with parents were very poor at predicting enrollment.
Results (preliminary)
Ranked as most needy according to…
MoE parent form (assets)
PRA (SMC + teachers)
PRA (SMC + teachers + parents)
Household survey (assets)
% enrolled in school in 2008
78% 72% 82% 74%
Ranked among TOP 5 MOST NEEDY STUDENTS according to…
MoE parent form (assets)
PRA (SMC + teachers)
PRA (SMC + teachers + parents)
Household survey (assets)
% enrolled in school in 2008
76% 66% 79% 73%
Results (preliminary)
Concrete recommendations for MoE forms
Difficult to distinguish among the poor: Needs better measures of lower income
Certain assets were owned by (almost) no households and so could be removed
Questions where teachers ranking students could be improved
What about the traditional method?
Remember the Constituency Committees disbursing funds as they please?
Anecdotes: Spread to everyone In fact: only 4% of students received
41% of government bursaries were given to students ranked in the less needy group by the PRA methods
Timeline First disbursements: May (2nd term) September 2008: 4 of 9 committees had not
disbursed funds!
Final Thoughts/ Questions What kind of results will we get from other
measures of income/ poverty (apart from assets)?
Did a student’s rank in class influence his/her neediness ranking?
What are some other methods of student identification that could be used in PRA poverty targeting meetings?
Are these results externally valid? How would this work in your country/ community?
Cautionary note from Cambodia:Am I even studying the right thing?Students in Grade 6 apply for a
scholarship for Grade 7: mix of need and merit
Scholarships of $45 and $60
Scholarships led to 20% higher attendance 15% higher enrolment Filmer & Schady
2008
Learning? No effect!
Schedule of Activities
----2007---- ----------------------------------2008----------------------------------
Activity/ Month 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fine-tuning of study design with MoE
Selection of 36 pilot schools with MoE
Pre-testing of PRA protocol
MoE Standard 8 Forms distributed to schools and collected by IPA
PRA Targeting meetings (Methods 2 and 3)
Pre-testing of household surveys
Household surveys with sampled standard 8 parents
School visits to collect data on KCPE results, admissions/ enrollment status of former Std 8 students
Visits to constituencies to collect data on CDF & MoE bursary recipients
Data cleaning and analysis
Completion Report
All IPA activities on hold due to post-election violence in Kenya from J an-Feb of 2008.