What is the effect of informing schools of their internal efficiency indicators? Experimental evidence from Argentina

Last registered on June 04, 2018

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

What is the effect of informing schools of their internal efficiency indicators? Experimental evidence from Argentina

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0003033

Initial registration date

May 31, 2018

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

June 04, 2018, 9:16 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country

Argentina

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Alejandro Ganimian

Affiliation

New York University

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

María A. Cortelezzi

PI Affiliation

Proyecto Educar 2050

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Jonah E. Rockoff

PI Affiliation

Columbia Business School

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Alejandro Jorge Ganimian

PI Affiliation

Department of Applied Psychology - Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development - New York University

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

On going

Start date

2017-03-15

End date

2019-07-01

Keywords

Education

Additional Keywords

JEL code(s)

C93, I21, I22, I25

Secondary IDs

Abstract

This study proposes a Randomized Control Trial impact evaluation of providing internal efficiency information to public and private, primary and secondary, and urban and rural schools in Argentina. The information is provided through brief and easy-to-understand reports that will allow schools to compare themselves with (a) their country, province and locality, in the most recent year; and (b) with itself, in the last three years. The reports will also include a letter from the national and provinicial ministries to signal the importance of the use of information, an executive summary that extracts the main points of the presented information and some questions to accompany the principal's and teachers' reading of the report.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Cortelezzi, María A. et al. 2018. "What is the effect of informing schools of their internal efficiency indicators? Experimental evidence from Argentina." AEA RCT Registry. June 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3033-1.0

Former Citation

Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2017-03-15

Intervention End Date

2018-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

school enrollment, grade promotion, grade repetition, drop-out rates, learning outcomes

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

In 23 of 24 provinces, schools were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 1, which receives internal efficiency information in the beginning of 2017; or group 2, which receives internal efficiency information in the beginning of 2018. In addition, there will be two versions of group 1: group 1A, which receives information in which the comparison will be done with all schools (public and private); and group 1B, which will receive information in which the comparison will be done with schools with the same type of management (in other words, public schools will be compared will other public schools, and private schools will be compared with other private schools)
Randomization was done with three stratification levels: province, education level and size (specifically, terciles of total number of students, including primary and secondary). The purpose of the stratification was to maximize comparability of schools in the different experimental groups, increasing statistical power. This strategy resulted in 7,269 schools in Group 1A, 7313 schools in group 1B and 7,360 schools in group 2.
In one of the 24 provinces, schools were randomly assigned to one of four groups: groups 1A and 1B that receive internal efficiency information in the beginning of 2017; group 2 that receives internal efficiency information in the end of 2018; and group 3 that receives internal efficiency information and training to understand this information in the beginning of 2017. In this province, randomized assignment was also stratified as in the other 23 provinces. In other words, two lotteries were done. This strategy resulted in 211 schools in group 1A, 215 schools in group 1B, 213 in group 2, and 216 school in group 3.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done in office by a computer

Randomization Unit

Schools

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

N/A

Sample size: planned number of observations

22,797 schools

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

As explained above, in 23 of 24 provinces, the assignment resulted in 7,269 schools in Group 1A, 7313 schools in group 1B and 7,360 schools in group 2. In 1 of 24 provinces, the randomization resulted in 211 schools in group 1A, 215 schools in group 1B, 213 in group 2, and 216 school in group 3.

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

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB