**Table 1: Average marginal effects of school distance from model of school participation and summary statistics, rural children aged** **<u>6 to 14 (probit model)</u>**

|||Sum|marysta|tistics<br>Dista|<br>nce to||Average marg|inal ef<br>Dista|fects o<br>nce to|f distance|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||School<br>participation|<br>Dista<br>nea<br>primar|nce to<br>rest<br>yschool|ne<br>seco<br>sc|arest<br>ndary<br>hool||Distance to<br>nearest primary<br>school(km)|<br>nea<br>secon<br>schoo|rest<br>dary<br>l(km)|P-value:<br>Joint test|
||||Std.||Std.||||||
||Mean|Mean|Error.|Mean|Error.|N|||||
|Niger 1992|0.104|3.5|(6.3)|36.0|(31.5)|5171|-0.009 *|0.000||0.111|
|Niger 1998|0.146|2.4|(8.4)|29.3|(21.9)|6582|-0.031 **|-0.001|**|0.000|
|Mali 1995-96|0.161|6.6|(8.7)|71.3|(29.6)|8913|-0.016 **|0.000||0.000|
|Senegal 1992-93|0.182|5.0|(10.0)|37.4|(31.3)|4150|0.004 **|0.000||0.022|
|Burkina Faso 1992-93|0.195|2.4|(6.0)|25.2|(21.1)|5848|-0.024 **|0.000||0.000|
|Chad 1998|0.264|7.5|(13.1)|38.3|(40.5)|5636|-0.017 **|-0.002|**|0.000|
|Benin 1996|0.337|0.9|(3.6)|24.2|(28.6)|5204|-0.019 **|-0.004|**|0.000|
|Morocco 1992|0.374|2.1|(4.3)|28.6|(25.7)|4259|-0.002|0.000||0.990|
|Cộte d’Ivoire 1994|0.417|1.1|(5.8)|34.9|(29.5)|5638|0.000|-0.001||0.430|
|Tanzania 1991-92|0.454|1.0|(5.9)|31.8|(28.8)|9899|-0.007|0.000||0.186|
|C.A.R. 1994-95|0.465|4.0|(9.4)|44.2|(29.8)|3923|-0.012 **|0.001||0.000|
|Madagascar 1992|0.521|0.9|(2.6)|11.6|(14.2)|5569|-0.030 **|0.000||0.000|
|Dominican Rep. 1991|0.530|0.5|(1.2)|8.7|(7.7)|3343|-0.024 *|0.000||0.118|
|Nigeria 1999|0.611|1.0|(3.2)|6.0|(12.6)|6048|-0.003|-0.003||0.073|
|Cameroon 1991|0.625|2.5|(6.2)|24.4|(24.7)|2531|-0.009|-0.006|**|0.001|
|India 1992-93|0.629|0.2|(2.3)|5.2|(10.5)|73023|-0.001|-0.001||0.287|
|Haiti 1994-95|0.676|1.5|(3.7)|10.0|(14.1)|3507|-0.015 **|0.000||0.023|
|Uganda 1995|0.679|1.4|(1.8)|7.0|(6.9)|6803|-0.006|-0.004||0.020|
|Bangladesh 1993-94|0.704|0.2|(0.6)|1.8|(2.0)|10736|-0.021 *|-0.013|**|0.001|
|Bangladesh 1996-97|0.732|0.2|(0.6)|2.0|(4.2)|9774|-0.028 *|-0.004||0.113|
|Philippines 1993|0.752|0.5|(4.2)|8.2|(21.3)|8896|-0.001|0.000||0.529|
|India 1998-99|0.759|0.4|(3.7)|4.5|(6.8)|76147|0.000|-0.001||0.285|
|Zimbabwe 1994|0.836|2.5|(4.6)|7.2|(6.6)|6741|-0.005 **|-0.003|**|0.000|
|Bolivia 1993-94|0.838|0.7|(1.7)|18.1|(25.3)|4184|-0.008|-0.001|**|0.003|

_Note_ : Data ordered by average school participation. Selected results from a model that includes child’s age, adults’ education, characteristics of the head of household, and a set of cluster characteristics.*, ** indicate significance of the underlying groups of probit coefficients at the 5, and 1 percent, respectively. _Source:_ Author’s calculation from DHS data.

The DHS have disadvantages as well. The surveys were not designed for the specific purpose of carrying out analysis of education. Therefore, the timing of the surveys was not synchronized with the academic year, leading to potential confusion over the meaning of “in school,” the phrasing of the question relating to school enrollment.

Another disadvantage is that the surveys do not collect information on household expenditures, the variable typically used in poverty analysis. This analysis uses an alternative to household expenditures to investigate the relationship between enrollment and household longrun income. The DHS collect information on the ownership of various household assets, as well as indicators of the quality of the dwelling in which the family lives. These can be aggregated 5