School resources and student achievement: Data from rural India
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Amita Chudgar ; Madhur Chandra ; Radhika Iyengar ; Rishikesh Shanker
- 关键词：School resources ; Student achievement ; India ; Rural education
- 刊名：Prospects
- 出版年：2015
- 出版时间：December 2015
- 年：2015
- 卷：45
- 期：4
- 页码：515-531
- 全文大小：391 KB
- 参考文献：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
APF [Azim Premji Foundation] (2013). Child Friendly School Initiative (CFSI): A process document of stakeholders’ perspectives. Karnataka: Yadgir District Institute.
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).
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.CrossRef
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.
Burtless, G. T. (1996). Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1–24.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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.
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.
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.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361–396.CrossRef
Grubb, W. N. (2008). Multiple resources, multiple outcomes: Testing the “improved” school finance with NELS88. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 104–144.CrossRef
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
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.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141–164.CrossRef
Hanushek, E. A., & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and equity in schools around the world. Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 481–502.CrossRef
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
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Kingdon, G., & Banerji, R. (2008). How sound are our mathematics teachers? Insights from the SchoolTELLS survey. Learning Curve, issue XIV (March 2010), 52–55.
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.CrossRef
Kingdon, G. G., & Sipahimalani-Rao, V. (2010). Para-teachers in India: Status and impact. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(12), 59–67.
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.
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.CrossRef
Krueger, A. B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. Economic Journal, 113, 34–63.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Muralidharan, K. (2013). Priorities for primary education policy in India’s 12th five-year plan. India Policy Forum, 9, 1–46.
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
Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214.CrossRef - 作者单位：Amita Chudgar (1)
Madhur Chandra (2)
Radhika Iyengar (3)
Rishikesh Shanker (4)
1. College of Education, Michigan State University, Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, 408, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA
2. Department of Epidemiology, Michigan State University, B609 West Fee Hall, 909 Fee Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA
3. Center on Globalization and Sustainable Development, Earth Institute, Columbia University, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 825, New York, NY, 10115, USA
4. Azim Premji University, PES Campus, Pixel Park, B Block, Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bangalore, 560100, India - 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
- 刊物主题：Education
Education
Comparative Education - 出版者：Springer Netherlands
- ISSN：1573-9090
文摘
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