Managerial vs Human Capital Training

Last registered on April 05, 2021


Trial Information

General Information

Managerial vs Human Capital Training
Initial registration date
February 18, 2020

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
February 18, 2020, 2:21 PM EST

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

Last updated
April 05, 2021, 7:10 PM EDT

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



Primary Investigator

UC Berkeley

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
This project evaluates training for managers versus front line workers in the context of the low-cost private school sector in Pakistan.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Macdonald, Isabel. 2021. "Managerial vs Human Capital Training." AEA RCT Registry. April 05.
Experimental Details


The intervention includes teacher and school owner training aimed at low cost private schools.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
School revenue, school enrollment
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Outcomes to assess school growth:
• School fees and fee collection
• Assets including toilets, library, computers, desks, chairs, science labs, water cooler, generator, fans, playground, and boundary wall
• Investment amount and type
• Interest in future borrowing (self-reported)
• Student drop-out rates
• Quality indicators for management from business assessment
• School closures, which is likely to be low due to solvency and school age requirements to receive loan (prerequisite to enter sample)
• School expenses (self-reported)
• Proportion owner income from school vs other sources
Other outcomes:
• Teaching and learning quality indicators
• Teacher wages
• Teacher turnover
• Teacher learning on pre/post training survey
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
• Management and learning quality indicators assessed as a checklist

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Schools are randomly assigned to receive worker (teacher) training, manager (school owner) training, both trainings, or no trainings.
Experimental Design Details
Sample: Participants in the study include school owners and teachers from approximately 200 schools across Pakistan. Schools enter the sample if the owners are first-time borrowers with a national microfinance bank that also provides training. Repeat borrowers are excluded as they may have already received training. To qualify for the loan, borrowers must be the owner of a low-cost private school (LCPS) and must meet certain benchmarks for enrollment, revenue, and years of operation to ensure only reputable schools are included

Randomization: Schools are randomized into four treatment groups:
• T1: Receive both manager (school owner) and worker (teacher) training
• T2: Receive manager (school owner) training only
• T3: Receive worker (teacher) training only
• T4: Receive no training (control)
Randomization Method
Randomization using Stata
Randomization Unit
Randomization is stratified on urban vs. rural location due to differences in the competitive landscape across these locations. Semi urban schools are grouped with rural schools due to greater similarities in school revenue, enrollment, and growth for schools with this classification in past data sets. Classification is done by the microfinance institution.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
200 schools
Sample size: planned number of observations
200 schools 200 school owners Number of teachers depends on how many school owners send to the training, but expect around 600
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 schools control, 50 schools teacher training, 50 schools school owner training, 50 schools both trainings
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
We conduct power calculations using a power threshold of 0.8, significance level of 5%, sample of 200, and historic variance in school enrollment growth for low cost private schools from past projects. The minimum detectable effect is 0.2 standard deviations, or 4.9 percentage points higher growth in enrollment for treatment than control groups. The MDE is likely lower when accounting for the stratification variable (location) which were not available in the past dataset used to estimate historic variance.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Harvard University- Area Committee on the Use of Human Subjects
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials