Improving School Management in Low-Resource Settings: Experimental Evidence from India

Last registered on March 23, 2026

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Improving School Management in Low-Resource Settings: Experimental Evidence from India

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0017236

Initial registration date

March 16, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published

March 23, 2026, 7:13 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated

March 23, 2026, 10:54 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country

India

Region

Karnataka

Primary Investigator

Name

Todd Pugatch

Affiliation

University at Buffalo

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Sayak Khatua

PI Affiliation

Oregon State University

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Ketki Sheth

PI Affiliation

University of Tennessee

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Emmanuel Rukundo

PI Affiliation

RWI Liebniz Institute for Economic Research

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2024-09-01

End date

2026-01-15

Keywords

Education, Governance

Additional Keywords

school management; school leadership; remedial education; student engagement; student teamwork skills

JEL code(s)

I21, O22

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

India ranks at or near the bottom in measures of school management quality (Bloom et al 2015, Lemos et al 2021). In 2020, India adopted a National Education Policy (NEP) mandating 50 annual hours of continuous professional development (CPD) for school leaders. We evaluate an RCT of a school leadership development program for public secondary schools in Karnataka, India. The program aims to improve student learning and engagement by training school leaders to implement School Improvement (SI) plans in three areas: 1) student learning, via remedial classes in math and language; 2) student engagement, by promoting student inclusion and leadership through school clubs and participation in daily morning assembly; and 3) parent engagement, by increasing participation in parent-teacher meetings. The program includes training, peer learning circles, and regular micro-improvement projects (MIPs), attempting to overcome design flaws in previous programs without these supports. Government education officials, trained by the implementing NGO, play key roles in the program, promoting future scale-up. The control group does not receive the program. We randomly assigned a sample of 276 schools to treatment (133 schools) and control (143 schools). We measure the impact of the program on student learning, engagement, and skills; parent engagement; and school management practices. Results will provide evidence for potential program scale-up and adherence to the NEP, contributing to the nascent literature on school management interventions.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Khatua, Sayak et al. 2026. "Improving School Management in Low-Resource Settings: Experimental Evidence from India." AEA RCT Registry. March 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17236-1.1

Sponsors & Partners

Partner

Name

Mantra4Change

Type

ngo

URL

https://www.mantra4change.org/

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Samartha (“capable” in Kannada, the local language), a school leadership development program implemented by the Indian NGO Mantra4Change, aims to improve student learning and engagement by building school leader capacity. The program trains and supports school leaders to implement School Improvement (SI) plans in three areas:

1. Student learning: remedial classes in math and Kannada.
2. Student engagement: promoting student inclusion and leadership through enrichment opportunities (school clubs and participation in daily morning assembly)
3. Parental engagement: increasing participation in parent-teacher meetings

The program operates through the government education system, relying on district- and block-level officials, trained by the implementing NGO, to deliver the program. We evaluate an RCT of the program in public secondary schools in Karnataka.

Samartha supports school leaders to implement School Improvement plans via three pillars:

1. Support, including:
a. Training: regular workshops on implementing school improvements
b. Follow-up support: peer learning circles and WhatsApp groups with workshop facilitators and other staff

2. Accountability: school leaders implement Micro-Improvement Projects (MIPs) at regular intervals during the year. MIPs divide School Improvement plans into short-term, action-oriented projects. School leaders report progress on MIPs to program officials at regular intervals.

3. Recognition: annual celebrations showcase school achievements within the program. These celebrations provide incentives for implementation of school improvements, public recognition for high-performing schools, and disseminate information on best practices.

The program duration is two years.

Intervention (Hidden)

Intervention Start Date

2024-09-01

Intervention End Date

2026-01-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

student learning: math and language
student engagement: participation in extracurricular and leadership activities at school
student skills: reasoning, teamwork
school management practices (broad measure)

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

school management practices (detail): promotion of remedial learning, opportunities for student engagement and leadership, parental engagement

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Cluster RCT. The unit of randomization is the cluster, an administrative unit consisting of a geographic grouping of schools. In our sample, clusters average 1.4 schools eligible for the program.

We randomly assigned 194 clusters to treatment and control groups (96 treatment, 98 control). All schools within a cluster are assigned to the same group.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

randomization done in office by computer

Randomization Unit

cluster (geographic grouping of schools)

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

194 clusters

Sample size: planned number of observations

276 schools 5,273 students

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

treatment: 96 clusters (133 schools)
control: 98 clusters (143 schools)

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

MDE for student learning outcomes: 0.19 sd (assumptions: 194 clusters (98C/96T) with 27.2 students each, based on endline sample size; 5% test size [two-tailed]; 80% power; ICC = 0.2.

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB