As Table C makes clear, teacher-centric interventions appear a bit more effective than school-focused programs in the case of mathematics skills. But apart from this qualification, both groups of supplyside interventions hold promise for improving learning levels irrespective of whether these learning levels are measured in terms of native language, mathematics or overall test scores. In contrast, demand-side interventions seem to be less effective in improving learning outcomes. In particular, meta-analyses of demand-side interventions that directly target children, households or families reveal that these have only weak impacts on native language, mathematics or overall test scores. This result confirms the more verbal discussion in the last section about how interventions targeting households or families appear to be quite appropriate for increasing school enrollment but much less suitable for improving learning outcomes. While more research is needed on interventions that aim to involve whole communities in holding education service providers accountable, the (relatively scarce) evidence that is already available is at least somewhat encouraging. In the case of language and math test scores, the meta-analyses summarized in Table C reveal impacts of community-focused interventions that are stronger than those found for interventions targeting households and in the same order of magnitude as those documented for either group of supply-side interventions. For composite test scores, a metaanalysis of community-centric interventions is not feasible at this point.

**Table C – Summary of Results of the Meta-Analyses**

|**Actor**|**Effects**<br>|||**Examples of especially promising interventions**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Language **|**Math**|**Composite**||
|**A. Teachers**|+|++|++|Supplementaryremedial teachingbycommunityvolunteers|
|**B. Schools**|+|+|++|publicly funded private primary schools; revised English<br>education curriculum|
|**C.**<br>**Households**|(+)|(+)|(+)|_None_|
|**D.**<br>**Community**|+|+||school management structures and training/support services<br>for communitymembers|

**Notes:** o means no significant effect; (+) effect smaller than 0.05 s.d.; + effect beteween 0.05 and 0.15 s.d.; and ++ effect between 0.15 and 0.25 s.d.. A meta-analysis of community-focused interventions on overall learning outcomes is impossible because only one intervention falls into this category.

**Source:** World Bank staff calculations based on studies listed in Table A and Figures 3 to 5.

Instead of contrasting supply- and demand-side interventions, Table C can also be interpreted through the lens of whether programs targeting individuals or a collective appear more promising in promoting student learning. Partly because of the scarcity of rigorous evidence for the learning impacts of community-centric interventions, results from this exercise are less clear-cut than those contrasting supply- and demand-side interventions. This is especially the case for interventions’ impacts on math test scores since teacher-centered interventions seem to be very effective in improving mathematics learning while this is not the case for household-focused interventions and interventions targeting schools and communities promise moderate impacts. Overall, though, the summary of different metaanalyses suggests that programs centered on collective bodies are more effective in raising learning outcomes than those targeting individuals.

- 35 -