Are teachers biased against poor students? Experimental evidence from Peru

Last registered on September 21, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Are teachers biased against poor students? Experimental evidence from Peru
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003331
Initial registration date
September 18, 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
September 21, 2018, 12:10 AM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
World Bank

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
World Bank
PI Affiliation
World Bank

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2015-01-02
End date
2018-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study tests whether teachers use students’ income to evaluate their scholastic aptitude, behavior, and education potential, using experimental data from teachers in elementary schools representative of the public sector in Metropolitan Lima, Peru. The experimental design was adapted from a landmark study from psychology (Darley and Gross, 1983), in which subjects viewed a video of a child and teacher in a testing situation, where the child’s performance provided a very noisy signal of scholastic aptitude (the child correctly answered some difficult questions and incorrectly answered some easy questions). Prior to the testing video, subjects were randomly assigned to two different priming videos that showed the same child playing at home, either in a working class neighborhood or a middle class neighborhood. We augment this experimental set-up with another variant in which the child provides a very clear signal of high scholastic aptitude. We test to see whether teachers assigned to the different experimental variants rate the child differently with respect to their estimates of the child's grade level, educational potential, and behavior.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bertran, Maria Gabriela Farfan, Alaka Holla and Renos Vakis. 2018. "Are teachers biased against poor students? Experimental evidence from Peru." AEA RCT Registry. September 21. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3331-1.0
Former Citation
Bertran, Maria Gabriela Farfan, Alaka Holla and Renos Vakis. 2018. "Are teachers biased against poor students? Experimental evidence from Peru." AEA RCT Registry. September 21. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3331/history/34538
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)
Teachers in public primary schools in Metropolitan Lima used tablets during an experimental session. They first watched a video that introduced a male fourth grade student and depicted his socioeconomic background. Then teachers watched a video of the same child being evaluated by a teacher in an oral examination that contained questions from the official fourth grade curriculum. After watching these two videos, teachers were asked to rate the child in terms of his current scholastic aptitude, behavior, and expected educational attainment. There were two variants of the introductory video: one in which the student comes from a poor background and one in which he comes from a less poor background. There were also two variants of the examination video: one in which the child's performance provides a noisy signal of aptitude and one in which the child's performance provides a clear signal of high aptitude.

Intervention Start Date
2015-05-11
Intervention End Date
2015-08-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Estimated grade level of the child, perceived behavior of the child, and expected educational attainment of the child
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Behavioral variables includes teachers assessment of the child's work habits, motivation, sociability, emotional maturity, and cognitive skill. These categories come from Darley and Gross (1983, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Teachers were randomly assigned to one of six conditions:
1. Teachers only see the examination video showing a noisy signal of aptitude.
2. Teachers only see the examination video showing a clear signal of high aptitude.
3. Teachers see an introductory video showing a poor child and the examination video showing a noisy signal of aptitude.
4. Teachers see an introductory video showing a non-poor child and the examination video showing a noisy signal of aptitude.
5. Teachers see an introductory video showing a poor child and the examination video showing a clear signal of high aptitude.
6. Teachers see an introductory video showing a non-poor child and the examination video showing a clear signal of high aptitude.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by computer
Randomization Unit
Teacher
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
600 teachers
Sample size: planned number of observations
600 teachers
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 teachers per treatment arm
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials