CHRISTEL HOUSE WORKS Helping Children Break the Cycle of Poverty A Christel House Value Proposition March 2019 Value Proposition The mission of Christel House is to break the cycle of poverty around the world. Christel House schools invest in the lives of impoverished children utilizing research-based best practices with a focus on holistic human development, offering students pathways to becoming self-sufficient, contributing members of society and changing the lives of generations to come. The Devastating Effects of Poverty Worldwide, children trapped in poverty are denied the opportunity to gain an education that would position them to change their circumstances. Their schools are under-resourced, their teachers are absent and/or untrained, and learning targets lack rigor. Rather than encouraging completion of an education, parents rely on kids to start working at a young age to help support the family. Hunger and disease (often easily treated with proper medical attention) thwart the educational and professional aspirations of these children. They are trapped in the cycle of poverty. Whole cities and countries suffer as their human potential goes unrealized. Research demonstrates that equitable and quality education can increase a country’s gross domestic product per capita by 23% over a few decades.1 The Christel House Model Christel House International is a public charity founded in 1998. Seven human development centers in India, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States currently serve over 5,000 impoverished students (Figure 1). Christel Houses in the United States are public charter schools, and differ in some respects from the international model, but conform wherever possible. Christel House strives to transform the lives of these children, helping them to realize their hopes and dreams and become self-sufficient, contributing members of society. Christel House uses a holistic model of human development (Figure 2). Along with rigorous academics, students receive free health services such as annual physicals, vision checks and glasses as needed, hearing evaluations, dental cleanings, vaccinations, and mental health services. Breakfast, lunch and a snack that meet nutritional guidelines of each country are provided daily. These services contribute to student success, as it has been well-established by the research community that healthy, properly-nourished young children are more likely to reach their fullest physical, cognitive and socio-emotional potential.2 Such in-school programs for impoverished children have proven effective in increasing attendance, decreasing tardiness, and improving academic performance and cognitive functioning.3
The Christel House model includes meeting the social and emotional needs of students. The schools stress parental involvement and support, which is linked to academic success and good behavior in school.4 Character development programming is integrated into all aspects of the schools, with the four core values of Respect, Responsibility, Independence and Integrity as the foundation. These values are incorporated into curricula and modeled daily by students and staff. Community service projects at every grade level teach students to put values into action. Lifeskills education and career guidance programming prepare students for success in life after Christel House.
Figure 1: Christel House International Timeline.
Moreover, student support does not end upon graduation. For up to five additional years, the Christel House College & Careers Program helps graduates integrate into post-secondary schooling and the workforce. The support for university and vocational school students includes targeted financial aid, academic support, job search skills and networking opportunities. Graduates directly entering the workforce are assisted through internships and job placement services. Christel House graduates are encouraged to stay connected with the schools through volunteering, mentoring younger students, and charitable giving. In conjunction with its holistic focus, Christel House follows a "high-expectations, high-support� model that requires extraordinary commitment from students, teachers and administrators. The schools operate on an extended school day and year. This provides more “time-on-task� for students, which is highly correlated with learning outcomes.5 Selective teacher hiring practices, extensive professional development, frequent observations, annual evaluations, and an abovemarket compensation and benefits structure, which includes performance bonuses, help Christel
House put excellent teachers in classrooms. Christel House believes that all students can meet their goals through hard work and appropriate support. All Christel House schools (except Mexico) use English-medium instruction, and the curriculum is rigorous, exceeding local and national content standards. The extended school day and year allow for increased and individualized instructional time. particularly in core subjects. Instruction in visual and performing arts, physical education, computers, and additional languages provides a well-rounded education. Rich extracurricular offerings include sports, dance, band, video editing, robotics, coding, debate, and chess, and contribute to learning and social development outside of the classroom. Students learn the value of giving back to their communities with welldeveloped service learning curricula. In the 2017-18 school year, Christel House students completed over 73,000 volunteer hours around the world. Christel House facilities are of higher quality than those of local public schools. Students receive educational materials free of charge, including school uniforms, textbooks, and classroom supplies. Classrooms are well-equipped and students have access to computer labs, libraries, well-stocked music and art classrooms, sports facilities and indoor cafeterias. School resources such as these can be linked to student learning in developing countries.6 By exposing students to a quality environment and setting a standard of excellence, Christel House shows students what can be achieved through hard work and perserverance.
Figure 2: "Christel House Model" from Project Prometheus Report, Deloitte, September 2016. Page 18
Funding and Cost Structure The operational structure and financing for each Christel House Learning Center depends on its location, but to a greater or lesser degree all depend on charitable donations from corporations, individuals, foundations, governments and the Christel House Founder to support programs and services. Thanks to the Founder’s generosity in assuring that general and administrative expenses, including fundraising costs, are covered from other sources, donors are assured that 100% of their contributions provide a direct benefit for the children. For the 2018/19 fiscal year, Christel House’s budgeted cost per pupil (“CPP”) averaged $7,519 including the U.S. charter schools. If U.S. schools are excluded, CPP drops to $4,283. The CPP by center along with comparable private school tuitions and local public school per pupil expenditures, are detailed in Figure 3 (all in U.S. dollars).
Learning Centers Academy South Academy West DORS Mexico South Africa Bangalore Atal Nagar
Christel House Total Per Pupil Costs $14,871 $12,971 $7,521 $5,508 $7,143 $3,586 $2,590
Average Local Private School Tuition Costs $7,1747 $7,1749 N/A11
$77015
Average Local Public School Per Pupil Costs $19,2038 $19,20310 N/A12 $2,89113 $1,50014 $33016 $26217
Figure 3: Christel House Costs Per Pupil by Center, compared to local private and public-school costs
Although the public expenditure per pupil falls below the Christel House cost per student in every country except America, public schools do not provide for comprehensive human development, nor do they achieve comparable results. Christel House has proven that its significant investment in this model transforms the lives of impoverished children. This benefit will inure not only to current students but also future generations. The results discussed below bear this out. In summary, the improved academic attainment, reduced rate of grade repetition and lower dropout rates make Christel House a highly cost-effective investment.18 Considering this, a case can be made that producing a Christel House graduate costs less than the cost to produce a graduate through the public school system.
International Centers The four centers located outside the United States operate as K-12 independent, tuition-free schools serving severely impoverished children selected by Christel House based on strict poverty-based criteria. Prospective students are assessed for significant cognitive impairments, and those falling within a normal range of learning ability are eligible for admission. Parents sign a contract committing to volunteer at school, attend educational workshops, and participate in parent-teacher conferences as their contribution to their child’s education. If, over time, the economic circumstances of students' families substantially improve, they are asked to make a small contribution to their child’s education; however, the vast majority of students pay nothing to attend Christel House. It is important to consider that the Christel House Annual Cost Per costs include numerous goods and services not Graduate provided by local public or private schools, including books, supplies, uniforms, food, transportation, $4,014 special education services, health and social services, and College & Careers programming. In addition, $1,546 Christel House generally operates with a longer school day and a longer school year than comparable $2,468 schools, which drives additional costs into the model. When conservative estimates of these additional goods and services are deducted from the Christel House costs, the model is delivered at a materially lower cost per student than private school alternatives. A study conducted on Christel House Bangalore found that when the annual cost to produce a graduate was considered, the Christel CHB Govt. SchoolsHouse model was more efficient than provincial public Karnataka schools due to the significantly higher graduation rate of students at Christel House (Figure 4).19 Figure 4: Estimated cost in USD per passed U.S. Centers
student. Data from Project Prometheus Report, Deloitte, September 2016.
The three American centers, two of which are traditional K-12 (one opened in 2014 with K-2 and is adding one grade per year) and one of which is an adult high school dropout recovery program, operate as inner-city public charter schools in Indianapolis, Indiana. The schools receive most of their funding from the state and federal government; however no funding is provided by the state for transportation or capital expenditures. Any student can apply for admission to these schools. If requests for admission exceed available seats, entrants are determined by a lottery with preference given to applicants who qualify for the federal free or reduced lunch program. In 2018, 91% of students at Christel House Academy South and 98% of students at Christel House Academy West qualified for this indicator of poverty.
The Results Despite serving severely impoverished students, Christel House achieves impressive results, with its students often outperforming national and regional counterparts spanning all income groups. In the 2017-2018 school year, Christel House schools averaged 96% daily K-12 attendance, with 96% year-to-year retention, and 93% cumulative retention20 99% of Christel House secondary students passed graduation exams. Out of 965 College & Careers participants, 92% are continuing their studies or working (in or out of the home - Figure 5).
Christel House Graduate Outcomes
3% 4%
8%
Studying Working
27%
Apprenticeship 59% Homemaker Still to be Placed
Figure 5: Christel House K-12 graduate College & Career (C&C) outcomes, based on most recent activities of active C&C graduates.
Christel House India Only about 4% of students from government schools in India graduate from university. 95% of CHB graduates matriculate into tertiary education, and they have a 91% persistence rate, with only 9% not completing their studies once they have started. Overall, 91% of the College & Career participants are either continuing education, employed, or both. Graduates who have completed
university are employed at companies such as Dell, IBM, HP, KPMG, Deloitte, Northern Trust, Wells Fargo, Accenture, and EY. In Karnataka, the state where Christel House Bangalore (CHB) operates, only about 34% of students who enrolled in elementary school in 2004 continued through to grade 12, and just 19% actually graduated: this represents a loss of over 870,000 potential graduates for this cohort.21 At CHB, which serves 857 K-12 students, about 84% of students enrolled in elementary school remain with Christel House through grade 10, and 65% graduate from CHB in grade 12. Many students lost between trade 10 and 12 chose to pursue different course specializations at other high schools, so 65% underestimates CHB’s true cohort graduation rate. For as long has CHB has been graduating students, its students have performed well above the provincial average for passing the 12th Grade Board Exam, which is required for graduation. For example, in 2018, 87% of CHB 12th grade students passed the board exam on their first try, compared to only 60% of students from the rest of the Karnataka province. After “re-takes,� 97% of CHB 12th graders passed. Not only are CHB students performing above average, but they are competing against more resourced peers, because many students from low socio-economic households drop out of school long before 12th grade. This holds true for the 10th Grade Board Exam pass rate as well. (Figure 6).
10th Grade Board Exam Pass Rates 98%
97% 86% 27%
24% 20%
70%
67%
08/09
09/10
100% 18%
82% 74%
10/11
CHB
97% 19%
77%
Karnataka 97%
97%
12%
14%
18%
81%
83%
93%
94%
97%
26%
25%
79% 68%
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
72%
17/18
Figure 6: 10th Grade Board Exam results for CHB, compared to the entire Karnataka province. Students have a chance to re-take the exam, resulting in a higher final pass rate than shown above.
In the fall of 2016, Christel House opened a school in Atal Nagar, India. In 2017-18, it served 279 students in grades K-3 and 238 families in this rural area. The school boasts 100% student retention year over year, 96% average daily teacher attendance, and 95% average daily student attendance.
Christel House South Africa The quality of education in South Africa lags far behind the rest of the world. A comparison by the OECD ranked South Africa’s education system 75th out of 76 countries.22 27% of students who have attended school for six years cannot read, compared with 4% in Tanzania. About half of the students who have been in school for five years cannot do basic division. In 2015, of the nearly 50 countries assessed by Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), South Africa ranked at the bottom in mathematical achievement for both fifth and ninth grade. 23 The gap in test scores between the top 20% of wealthiest schools and the remaining 80% is wider than in almost every other country24 Students at Christel House South Africa (CHSA) outperform their peers. 88% of 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders at CHSA passed the Systemic Language Assessment (standardized achievement test for Western Cape) in 2018, compared to a 46% provincial pass rate. 78% of CHSA students passed the mathematics assessment compared to 41% in the province. Historical data attests to CHSA’s consistent high performance on the Systemic Language Assessment results as shown in Figure 7. Higher achievement on Systemic assessments correlates with a higher likelihood to graduate secondary school on time. Only about 39% of South African students who were in 2nd grade in 2007 completed high school in 2017.25 Of the students in grade 2 at CHSA in 2007, 61% completed high school in 2017 at Christel House (and still more could have graduated from other high schools). The cumulative retention rate of all students who enter CHSA is 90%.26 100% of all CHSA students who took the National Senior Certificate graduation exam in 2018 passed on their first attempt, beating the provincial pass rate of 81%. 72% scored a “bachelor pass,” high enough to earn admission to university, beating the provincial bachelor pass rate by 30 percentage points.
Language Systemic Assessment Pass Rates CHSA 79% 59%
37%
36%
41%
38%
11/12
12/13
23% 35%
10/11
74%
Western Cape
92%
88%
84%
83%
36%
40%
38%
43%
44%
44%
46%
46%
13/14
14/15
15/16
16/17
17/18
78%
46%
Figure 7: Pass rates for the Language Systemic Benchmark, CHSA compared with Western Cape province. Average pass rate of grades 3, 6, and 9 shown.
Higher graduation rates in turn correlate with better life outcomes. While South Africa faces a staggering youth unemployment rate of 54%27, 96% of CHSA alumni are working and/or continuing their education. Although only 15% of the South African population aged 25-64 has obtained a tertiary degree28, about 44% of recent CHSA graduates have completed or are actively pursuing tertiary education. Christel House Mexico Mexico continues to struggle to reform its educational system. 64% of adults ages 25-64 have not obtained a high school diploma. On average, these adults make 40% less than their peers with a high school diploma. In spite of the correlation between educational attainment and earning, in 2016 only 67% of young adults ages 15-19 were in school.29 The organization Mexicanos Primero found that for every 100 students who enter grade 1 in the public school system, only 45 complete grade 9 on time.30 In contrast, 66% of Christel House Mexico (CHMX) students satisfactorily complete Grade 9 in the expected time. CHMX students achieved impressive attendance and year-to-year retention results as well: 95% and 97%, respectively, in 2018. The most recent results (2015) from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) found that Mexican students ranked in the bottom five of all countries surveyed for science, math, and reading. And, Mexican students are struggling even to meet national standards. In 2018, 60% of 6th grade students across Mexico scored the lowest level on the national standardized test (PLANEA) for mathematics, and an additional 18% scored the second to lowest level; indicating that 78% of 6th grade students in Mexico perform at or below the most basic level expected for their grade.31 In contrast, 86% of CHMX 6th grade students performed at or above competency levels in math, with 63% able to perform advanced tasks for their grade (Figure 8). CHMX students even outperform students from other private schools in Mexico City. The trends are the same for the language and communication exam, where nationally just 18% of students could perform advanced tasks, compared to 52% of CHMX students.
2018 Distribution of PLANEA Scores in Mathematics Level 1 CHMX
Private Schools
Mexico Wide
14%
Level 2
23%
25%
Level 4
20%
24%
60%
Level 3
43%
27%
24%
18%
15%
8%
Figure 8: Scores of 6th grade students on national standardized math exam in 2018. Level 1 is below basic ability, level 2 is basic ability, and levels 3 and 4 are considered advanced.
Christel House Academy (USA) Only 37% of 3rd through 8th grade students in Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) demonstrated proficiency on the state standardized test for language arts (ISTEP) in 2018.32 66% of Christel House Academy South (CHA-S) students passed the same exam, exceeding the IPS scores by 25 percentage points. Considering that CHA-S’s population of English as a Second Language (ESL) students was 9 percentage points greater than the wider IPS district, this represents a notable achievement.33 CHA-S students also consistently outperform IPS students on the state mathematics exam; between 2008 and 2018, the CHA-S pass rate was on average 20 percentage points higher than the IPS pass rate. A similar gap exists for the state reading exam (I-READ), where in 2018, CHA-S 3rd graders exceeded the IPS pass rate by 23 percentage points. 79% of CHA’s 2018 graduates earned academic honors diplomas—52 percentage points higher than the IPS district average (Figure 9). Every year that CHA-S has graduated students, the graduating class has had a higher percentage of academic honors diplomas than IPS (Figure 9). In Indiana, graduating with an academic honors diploma has been correlated not only with a greater likelihood to matriculate to college, but also a more successful freshman year of college, including a higher GPA, less need for remediation, and more class credits earned.34
Percentage of Diploma Types Granted General
Core 40
19%
38% 65%
Academic Honors
78%
79% 75%
50% 35% 12% CHA-S
IPS 15/16
27%
22%
6%
CHA-S
IPS
72% 21%
2%
CHA-S
16/17
IPS 17/18
Figure 9: Comparison of types of diplomas granted between CHA-S and IPS district.
Christel House Academy West (CHA-W) opened in 2014 and scored a 100% pass rate on the state IREAD exams (standardized 3rd grade reading test). In 2018, CHA-W students outscored IPS students in the mathematics state exam by 14 percentage points, continuing the trend of outperforming IPS schools in both mathematics and language every year since CHA-W began testing. In addition, CHA-W boasts a 96% average daily student attendance, and a 92% year over year retention rate, and in 2018, 99% of parents attended parent-teacher conferences.
DORS is a dropout recovery program that provides a pathway to a high school diploma (not a G.E.D.) for students 18 years of age and older. It operates at three campuses: night classes at CHA-S, and day classes at CHA-W and Ivy Tech Community College. DORS students have the opportunity to be dual-enrolled at Ivy Tech to earn both high school and college credit simultaneously. DORS has enabled 223 students to earn diplomas (Figure 10). DORS-W students had 100% pass rate on the algebra state exam in 2018. In that same year, 100% of the graduates earned dual credits and/or career certifications. Across all campuses, 90% of the graduates participate in College & Careers and 86% are continuing studies or working.
DORS Cumulative Graduate Count Total Graduates
223
152
5
17
12/13
13/14
38
14/15
68
15/16
16/17
17/18
Figure 10: Cumulative number of DORS graduates each year. All campuses combined.
CHRISTEL HOUSE STUDENTS EXCEL Christel House students finish school. They excel academically, demonstrate strong character and good values, and are prepared to successfully pursue further education or gainful employment. These achievements lead to rewarding occupations with higher incomes that allow Christel House graduates to break the cycle of poverty, attain self-sufficiency, and realize their hopes and dreams.
APPENDIX A Christel House International Student Retention and Graduation Calculations May 2015 (All statistics calculated at the end of the school year) Year-Over-Year Retention Purpose: To determine the rate at which students continue attending Christel House from the end of one year to the end of the next year. Formula: Total Students at end of current academic year less all new admissions (including backfills) during the academic year just ended divided by total students at previous academic year end (last day of previous academic year) less students graduating after the end of the previous year. Example (assuming calendar school year): Students at the end of prior school year (December 2, 2013) Less graduating 12th grade students included in number above Less students at the end of the prior school year who did not reenroll or show up for the current school year (students lost over summer vacation) (2014) Plus KG admissions at the start of the current year Plus backfill admissions at the start the current year Students at the beginning of the current school year (January 5, 2014) Plus Backfill admissions during the current school year Minus Withdrawals during current school year Minus Expulsions during current school year Students at the end of current school year (December 3, 2014) Year over Year Retention Percent at the end of current school year
A B
405 59
C
6
D E
60 1
A-B-C+D+E
401
F
1 2 1 399
G (G-D-E-F)/ (A-B)
97.4%
Cumulative Retention Purpose: To determine the rate at which students continue attending Christel House from the date of original admission through current year. It is a measure of the success at retaining every student who enters the school at any time. It only measures the retention of current student cohorts. Once a cohort graduates it is taken out of the calculation. Formula: Total Students in the school at academic year end (including current 12th graders or terminal grade students who will graduate in the current year) divided by the total number of students admitted (including starting grades and all backfills) from and including the original admissions date of the oldest class/grade of students.
Cumulative retention statistics are to be calculated and maintained for each school based upon normal school exit grades. In Mexico, South Africa and U.S. grade 12; India grades 10 and 12. Cohort Graduation Retention Purpose: To determine the percentage of individual students in a given class (cohort) who start with Christel House (in Kindergarten for most centers) and eventually graduate from Christel House on time. We will also note the percent of students in a cohort who do not graduate ontime but have been held back and are still on track to graduate. Formula: Total students graduating at year end who began their studies at Christel House in the center’s first year serving that cohort (i.e. kindergarten - this total excludes graduates who entered Christel House as backfills at any point after kindergarten) divided by the total student count of the KG admissions class of 13 years earlier (in the case of 12th grade graduation). Students who started with the cohort in KG and are still with us but were held back a grade at any point during CH schooling will be noted as held-back but on-track for delayed graduation. Note: As India has a grade 10 graduation and a grade 12 graduation, Cohort Retention will be calculated for both of these time frames. Also, South Africa’s comparative statistics go from grade 2-12, so CHSA’s cohort retention will have the same time frame. Example (assuming calendar school year): Total students graduating at the end of the current year (December 5, 2014) Graduates entering Christel House as backfill candidates Total cohort graduates Total students admitted 13 years ago (in the case of 12th grade graduation) in this cohort Students from original cohort who were held-back at some point in their education, but are still at the school and are on-track for delayed graduation. School year 2014 cohort graduation rate 2014 Cohort held-back but on-track for delayed graduation
A
46
B A-B
3 43
C
60
D
8
(A-B)/C D/C
71.6% 13.3%
High School Graduation Rate Purpose: To determine the success of our high schools in moving students from the start of high school through graduation. Formula: Christel House is basing much of its formula on that used by the Indiana Department of Education for determining graduation rate. The graduation cohort is formed upon the students’ entries into the first year of high school (In Indiana and India, 9th grade; 8th grade in
South Africa; 10th grade in Mexico). If students leave Christel House to attend another high school they are removed from the cohort. Students who leave Christel House for any other reason will be considered dropouts and will count against the graduation rate. If students are backfilled into Christel House during high school they are added to the cohort. Christel House will determine two “Graduation Rates�. One will be on-time graduation. The other will be delayed graduation rate. If students are held back during high school they will be moved into the cohort behind theirs. They will count against the On-Time Graduation Rate for their cohort, but will be counted in the Delayed Graduation Rate. Example: Number of graduates at end of current year Number of students entering high school with graduating cohort Number of current year graduates who were held back during high school (not part of current year graduates original high school cohort) Number of this graduating cohort who left CH during high school to attend other high schools (do not include drop outs) Number of students joining this graduating cohort during high school as backfills CH HS Delayed Graduation Rate CH HS On-time Graduation Rate
A B
44 50
C
4
D
1
E
2
(A-C)/BC+D+E) (A-C)/(BD+E)
..93 % 78.4 %
References 1
UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61657.html For example: Maluccio et al., 2006 http://www.ifpri.org/publication/impact-experimentalnutritional-intervention-childhood-education-among-guatemalan-adults and Walker et al., 2005 http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/2/399.short 3 For an overview of the published studies on the association between nutrition among schoolaged children and their performance in school, see: Taras, H. (2005), “Nutrition and Student Performance at School.” Journal of School Health, 75: 199–213. 4 For an overview of the published studies on the effects of parental involvement on educational achievement at the elementary and secondary level, see Jeynes, William H. "The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary School Student Academic Achievement: A Meta Analysis." Urban education 42.1 5 For an overview of studies on the association between time on task and student achievement, see: Brophy, Jere E. “Advances in Teacher Effectiveness Research,” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 45.1 (2010): 17-24 and Fisher, Charles W. "Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview." Journal of Classroom Interaction 17.1 (1981): 215 6 For an overview of the studies on the association between school resources and student achievement, see: Glewwe, Paul W., et al. School resources and educational outcomes in developing countries: a review of the literature from 1990 to 2010. No. w17554. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011. 7 An average of private schools in Indianapolis https://www.privateschoolreview.com/indiana/indianapolis. 8 Indianapolis Public Schools 2011 data extrapolated six years at 2% annual inflation 9 See endnote 7 10 See endnote 8 11 There is no comparable data for the DORS program in the Indianapolis area. 12 Ibid. 13 From OECD data, “Education at a glance: Education finance indicator,” Accessed online May 2017. https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm Mean primary and secondary education. 2013 data extrapolated 14 Average in Western Cape 2012-13, calculated based on reported expenditures and number of students: http://wced.pgwc.gov.za/documents/Citizens-Report/lgsp.html#CitizensReporteng.pdf*e_inf.htm 15 Estimate for FY 2015 from Deloitte, “Project Prometheus Report” 05 September 2016. Page 82. Adjusted for 3 years inflation. 16 Dongre, Kapur, et al., “Acountability Initiative: How much does India Spend per Student on Elementary Education?” 2014. http://accountabilityindia.in/paisa/study/download/1472 Estimates adjusted for inflation. Page 18. Accessed May 2017. 17 Ibid. 2
18
Repetition costs the public sector an additional year of spending for no additional progress toward completion of education. Desertion represents a loss of each year of schooling financed, with no completion of the education cycle. The private costs of repetition include an additional year of the household’s direct costs to keep the child in school (uniform, , transport, foregone earnings, etc), plus a year delay in the expected incremental earnings stream following completion of the education. Desertion leads to a permanent loss to the household of the expected incremental earning stream following completion of the education cycle. 19 Deloitte, “Project Prometheus Report,” 05 September 2016. Page 82. 20 See Appendix A for retention definitions 21 DISE Data, see State Report Cards: http://schoolreportcards.in/SRCNew/Links/DISEPublication.aspx Accessed online 2 December 2018. 22 “Bottom of the Class”, The Economist, January 2017 http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21713858-why-it-bottom-classsouth-africa-has-one-worlds-worst-education 23 TIMSS Highlights: South Africa pg 5: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/uploads/pageContent/2929/TIMSSHighlights2012Dec7final.pdf 242016 ASER Report http://img.asercentre.org/docs/Publications/ASER%20Reports/ASER%202016/aser_2016.pdf, pg 44. For information on ASER, see http://img.asercentre.org/docs/Bottom%20Panel/Key%20Docs/aserassessmentframeworkdocu ment.pdf, pg. 31 25 Calculation by Dr. Nicolas Spaull. See chart 1: https://nicspaull.com/2018/01/05/explainingthe-matric-results-in-7-gifs/ 26 See Appendix A for retention definitions 27 Unemployment, youth total, World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS 28 From OECD, “Education at a glance: Education finance indicator,” Accessed online May 2017. 29 From OECD, “Education at a glance: Education finance indicator,” Accessed online May 2017. 30 Mexicanos Primero, Brechas: http://www.mexicanosprimero.org/images/stories/Reporte_Mexicanos_Primero__Brechas_2010.pdf 31 For discussion of levels, see: https://educacion.nexos.com.mx/?p=970 32 Indianapolis Public Schools ISTEP+ 2017/18 results on Compass, IDOE https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/scistep.aspx?type=corp&id=5385 33 Indianapolis Public Schools Enrollment 2017-18 by English Language Learner results on Compass, IDOE. https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/enrollment.aspx?type=corp&id=5385 34 “Indiana College Readiness Report: 2015 High School Graduates, State of Indiana” pp. 4-5 http://www.in.gov/che/files/2015%20state%20level%20reports.pdf