Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs: The case of flip charts in Kenya

Paul Glewwe; Michael Kremer; Sylvie Moulin; Eric Zitzewitz

doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.010

Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs: The case of flip charts in Kenya

Paul Glewwe, Michael Kremer, Sylvie Moulin, Eric Zitzewitz

Applied Economics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

124 Scopus citations

Abstract

This paper compares retrospective and prospective analyses of the effect of flip charts on test scores in rural Kenyan schools. Retrospective estimates suggest that flip charts raise test scores by up to 20% of a standard deviation. Yet prospective estimators based on a randomized trial provide no evidence that flip charts increase test scores. One interpretation is that the retrospective results suffered from omitted variable bias. If the direction of this bias were similar in other retrospective analyses of educational inputs in developing countries, the effects of inputs may be more modest than retrospective studies suggest. A difference-in-differences retrospective estimator seems to reduce bias, but it requires additional assumptions and is feasible for only some educational inputs.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	251-268
Number of pages	18
Journal	Journal of Development Economics
Volume	74
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.010
State	Published - Jun 2004

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This paper is the outcome of a project that is a joint undertaking of many people. Assistance in data collection and analysis was provided by Chris Asoka, Irene Majale, Robert Namunyu, Caroline Nekesa, Stacy Nemeroff, Michael Wambetsa, Polycarp Waswa, and Maureen Wechuli. Invaluable assistance was provided by the staff of International Christelijk Steunfonds: Damary Alembi, Chip Bury, Jos Huizinga, Japheth Mahagwa, Pamela Oranja, and Susan Walji. We thank our discussant at Stanford, Ed Vytlacil, and two anonymous referees. Finally, we are grateful to Mr. Munala, the District Education Officer of Busia, to Mr. Buluma, the inspector of primary schools in Busia, and to the headmasters, teachers, and students of the participating schools. Financial support was provided by the National Science Foundation and the World Bank research committee. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation, the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

Keywords

Developing countries
Education
Flip charts
Kenya
Program evaluation
Randomized trial

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access

10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.010

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{b30c99a8ca2e4366ac447617456eb018,

title = "Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs: The case of flip charts in Kenya",

abstract = "This paper compares retrospective and prospective analyses of the effect of flip charts on test scores in rural Kenyan schools. Retrospective estimates suggest that flip charts raise test scores by up to 20% of a standard deviation. Yet prospective estimators based on a randomized trial provide no evidence that flip charts increase test scores. One interpretation is that the retrospective results suffered from omitted variable bias. If the direction of this bias were similar in other retrospective analyses of educational inputs in developing countries, the effects of inputs may be more modest than retrospective studies suggest. A difference-in-differences retrospective estimator seems to reduce bias, but it requires additional assumptions and is feasible for only some educational inputs.",

keywords = "Developing countries, Education, Flip charts, Kenya, Program evaluation, Randomized trial",

author = "Paul Glewwe and Michael Kremer and Sylvie Moulin and Eric Zitzewitz",

note = "Funding Information: This paper is the outcome of a project that is a joint undertaking of many people. Assistance in data collection and analysis was provided by Chris Asoka, Irene Majale, Robert Namunyu, Caroline Nekesa, Stacy Nemeroff, Michael Wambetsa, Polycarp Waswa, and Maureen Wechuli. Invaluable assistance was provided by the staff of International Christelijk Steunfonds: Damary Alembi, Chip Bury, Jos Huizinga, Japheth Mahagwa, Pamela Oranja, and Susan Walji. We thank our discussant at Stanford, Ed Vytlacil, and two anonymous referees. Finally, we are grateful to Mr. Munala, the District Education Officer of Busia, to Mr. Buluma, the inspector of primary schools in Busia, and to the headmasters, teachers, and students of the participating schools. Financial support was provided by the National Science Foundation and the World Bank research committee. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation, the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. ",

year = "2004",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.010",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "74",

pages = "251--268",

journal = "Journal of Development Economics",

issn = "0304-3878",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs

T2 - The case of flip charts in Kenya

AU - Glewwe, Paul

AU - Kremer, Michael

AU - Moulin, Sylvie

AU - Zitzewitz, Eric

N1 - Funding Information: This paper is the outcome of a project that is a joint undertaking of many people. Assistance in data collection and analysis was provided by Chris Asoka, Irene Majale, Robert Namunyu, Caroline Nekesa, Stacy Nemeroff, Michael Wambetsa, Polycarp Waswa, and Maureen Wechuli. Invaluable assistance was provided by the staff of International Christelijk Steunfonds: Damary Alembi, Chip Bury, Jos Huizinga, Japheth Mahagwa, Pamela Oranja, and Susan Walji. We thank our discussant at Stanford, Ed Vytlacil, and two anonymous referees. Finally, we are grateful to Mr. Munala, the District Education Officer of Busia, to Mr. Buluma, the inspector of primary schools in Busia, and to the headmasters, teachers, and students of the participating schools. Financial support was provided by the National Science Foundation and the World Bank research committee. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation, the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

PY - 2004/6

Y1 - 2004/6

N2 - This paper compares retrospective and prospective analyses of the effect of flip charts on test scores in rural Kenyan schools. Retrospective estimates suggest that flip charts raise test scores by up to 20% of a standard deviation. Yet prospective estimators based on a randomized trial provide no evidence that flip charts increase test scores. One interpretation is that the retrospective results suffered from omitted variable bias. If the direction of this bias were similar in other retrospective analyses of educational inputs in developing countries, the effects of inputs may be more modest than retrospective studies suggest. A difference-in-differences retrospective estimator seems to reduce bias, but it requires additional assumptions and is feasible for only some educational inputs.

AB - This paper compares retrospective and prospective analyses of the effect of flip charts on test scores in rural Kenyan schools. Retrospective estimates suggest that flip charts raise test scores by up to 20% of a standard deviation. Yet prospective estimators based on a randomized trial provide no evidence that flip charts increase test scores. One interpretation is that the retrospective results suffered from omitted variable bias. If the direction of this bias were similar in other retrospective analyses of educational inputs in developing countries, the effects of inputs may be more modest than retrospective studies suggest. A difference-in-differences retrospective estimator seems to reduce bias, but it requires additional assumptions and is feasible for only some educational inputs.

KW - Developing countries

KW - Education

KW - Flip charts

KW - Kenya

KW - Program evaluation

KW - Randomized trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2342583532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2342583532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.010

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:2342583532

SN - 0304-3878

VL - 74

SP - 251

EP - 268

JO - Journal of Development Economics

JF - Journal of Development Economics

IS - 1

ER -

Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs: The case of flip charts in Kenya

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this