PROSPECTS

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 515–531 | Cite as

School resources and student achievement: Data from rural India

  • Amita Chudgar
  • Madhur Chandra
  • Radhika Iyengar
  • Rishikesh Shanker
Open File
First Online:

Abstract

In addition to basic infrastructure, what school resources are important to improve learning? This question is hard to answer due to lack of availability of appropriate data. Collaboration between researchers at US universities and a large, well-established educational foundation in India enabled this study to overcome the challenge of data availability. The study used a unique 60-item instrument—with data from 88 government schools—that generated 8 different indices of school resources. The article finds that in schools with more learning-specific facilities and more co-curricular activities children perform well in math, all else being equal. This article discusses the study’s limitations and implications for research, policy and practice.

Keywords

School resources Student achievement India Rural education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. ASER [Annual Status of Education Report] (2013). All India ASER 2008. New Dehli: ASER Centre. http://img.asercentre.org/docs/Publications/ASER%20Reports/ASER_2013/ASER2013_report%20sections/aser2013fullreportenglish.pdf
  2. APF [Azim Premji Foundation] (2013). Child Friendly School Initiative (CFSI): A process document of stakeholders’ perspectives. Karnataka: Yadgir District Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Atherton, P., & Kingdon, G. (2010). The relative effectiveness and costs of contract and regular teachers in India. Working paper no. 15. Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE).Google Scholar
  4. Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & LeTendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., et al. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Briefing paper no. 278. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Burtless, G. T. (1996). Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.Google Scholar
  9. Chudgar, A., & Luschei, T. F. (2009). National income, income inequality, and the importance of schools: A hierarchical cross-national comparison. American Education Research Journal, 46(3), 626–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corcoran, S. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students test scores? Should they be? The use of value-added measures of teacher effectiveness in policy and practice. Providence: Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.Google Scholar
  11. Directorate of State Education Research and Training (2012). Teaching-learning of environmental studies (EVS) at the primary school level: A position paper. Bengaluru, Karnataka: Karnataka D.Ed. Curriculum Framework. Research and Training Division of the Directorate of State Education.Google Scholar
  12. Glewwe, P. W., Hanushek, E. A., Humpage, S. D., & Ravina, R. (2011). School resources and educational outcomes in developing countries: A review of the literature from 1990 to 2010. NBER working paper no. 17554. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  13. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grubb, W. N. (2008). Multiple resources, multiple outcomes: Testing the “improved” school finance with NELS88. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 104–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guarino, C. M., Reckase, M. D. & Wooldridge, J. (2012). Can value-added measures of teacher performance be trusted? IZA discussion paper no. 6602. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2085189
  16. Hanushek, E. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success (pp. 43–73). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanushek, E. A., & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and equity in schools around the world. Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, D., & Sass, T. R. (2006). Value-added models and the measurement of teacher quality. Unpublished paper. Tallahassee: Florida State University. http://itp.wceruw.org/vam/IES_Harris_Sass_EPF_Value-added_14_Stanford.pdf
  20. Heyneman, S., & Loxley, W. (1983). The effect of primary school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high and low income countries. American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1162–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iyengar, R., & Bajaj, M. (2011). After the smoke clears: Examining curricular approaches to environmental education in Bhopal, India. Comparative Education Review, 55(3), 424–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kingdon, G., & Banerji, R. (2008). How sound are our mathematics teachers? Insights from the SchoolTELLS survey. Learning Curve, issue XIV (March 2010), 52–55.Google Scholar
  23. Kingdon, G., & Muzammil, M. (2013). The school governance environment in Uttar Pradesh, India: Implications for teacher accountability and effort. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(2), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kingdon, G. G., & Sipahimalani-Rao, V. (2010). Para-teachers in India: Status and impact. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(12), 59–67.Google Scholar
  25. Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Y. Petscher & C. Schatsschneider (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 171–207). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Koedel, C., & Betts, J. (2011). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher effectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Education Finance and Policy, 6(1), 18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krueger, A. B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. Economic Journal, 113, 34–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luschei, T. F., & Chudgar, A. (2011). Teachers, student achievement and national income: A cross-national examination of relationships and interactions. Prospects, 41(4), 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muralidharan, K. (2013). Priorities for primary education policy in India’s 12th five-year plan. India Policy Forum, 9, 1–46.Google Scholar
  30. PAISA [Planning, Allocations and Expenditures, Institutions: Studies in Accountability] (2012). Do schools get their money? New Delhi: Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research. http://www.accountabilityindia.in/sites/default/files/state-report-cards/paisa_report_2012.pdf
  31. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© UNESCO IBE 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amita Chudgar
    • 1
  • Madhur Chandra
    • 2
  • Radhika Iyengar
    • 3
  • Rishikesh Shanker
    • 4
  1. 1.College of EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of EpidemiologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Center on Globalization and Sustainable Development, Earth InstituteColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Azim Premji UniversityBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations