teacher incentives and local participation evidence from a randomized program in kenya n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Teacher incentives and local participation : Evidence from a randomized program in Kenya PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Teacher incentives and local participation : Evidence from a randomized program in Kenya

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 10

Teacher incentives and local participation : Evidence from a randomized program in Kenya - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 70 Views
  • Uploaded on

Teacher incentives and local participation : Evidence from a randomized program in Kenya. Joost de Laat Michael Kremer Christel Vermeersch. What kind of teacher incentives?. Narrow incentives  easy to game Glewwe et al. ( 2003), Lavy (2004 ), Jacob and Levitt (2003)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Teacher incentives and local participation : Evidence from a randomized program in Kenya' - macaulay-roberts


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
teacher incentives and local participation evidence from a randomized program in kenya

Teacher incentives and local participation: Evidencefrom a randomizedprogram in Kenya

Joost de Laat

Michael Kremer

ChristelVermeersch

what kind of teacher incentives
Whatkind of teacher incentives?
  • Narrow incentives  easy to game
    • Glewweet al. (2003), Lavy(2004), Jacob and Levitt (2003)
  • Broader incentives using community information
    • Local communities may have broader information on teacher performance
    • Criteria may be harder to game
    • Repeated interactions and commitment problems.
community participation in kenyan schools school committees
Communityparticipation in Kenyanschools: schoolcommittees
  • Conformation:
    • mandated by law
    • 15 members: 9 elected parent representatives, 2 District Education Board delegates, 3 sponsors, head teacher.
    • Electedyearlybyparentassembly
  • Roles:
    • oversee disbursement of capitation grants
    • design &implementation of school development plans
    • communicate with local education office about any issues
    • Suggesting promotions and transfer of teachers to MoE officials, no hiring
program goals and content
Programgoals and content
  • Improving accountability: stronger collaboration between school, school committee, and local educational authorities
  • Incentives for teachers: prizes to be assigned by the school committee, based on broad criteria (50% of a month salary)
  • Knowledge of financial procedures & oversight: training of school committee
identification and data
Identification and data
  • Randomizedevaluation:
    • 34 treatment, 34 comparisonschools
  • Data:
    • Votingbehaviorforprizeallocation
    • Composition of schoolcommittee
    • Schoolcommitteeactivities
    • Teacher and studentattendance
    • Classroomactivities
    • Student scores onnationalexam
prize allocation
Prizeallocation
  • Criteriavariedovertheyears
  • Year 2:
    • Important: male, seniorteachersand relatives/neighbors of committeemembers
    • Notimportant: Goodattendance
    • SC didnotrate males and relatives/neighborshigher in terms of quality
  • Year 3:
    • Important: goodattendance
    • Notimportant: male and relative/neighbor of SC members
results overall
Results, overall
  • Teacherattendance:
    • no effectoverall (from 87% level)
    • negativeimpactontypes “wrongfully” favored
  • Teacherturnover: No overalleffect
  • Classroomobservations:
    • Someincrease in idle time
    • Increase in homeworkallocation
  • Pupilattendance: no effect
  • Test scores: no effect
results in final year only
Results in final yearonly
  • Schoolcommittees more likelytomeetwithparents
  • Schoolcommittees more likelytodiscussteachingmatterswithteachers
composition of the school committee
Composition of theschoolcommittee
  • Baseline:
    • 82% male,
    • Avg. 49 yearsold
    • Avg <8 years of education
    • 85% peasantfarmers
  • Programimpact:
    • No change in turnover
    • Increase in educationlevels (0.58 years)
    • Increase in averageage (1.54 years)
    • No changes in othercharacteristics
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Communitybasedevaluationisnot a panacea
  • Overall: littleto no impact
  • Someperverse incentives, especially at thebeginning
  • Took time for positive changestohappen
  • Relatedtotheyearly SC electioncycle?
  • No enough time toevaluatelongtermeffect