allocation to groups was indeed random.<sup>12</sup> The baseline data for the combined sample is presented in column 1 of each regression table. Several of the results from the baseline survey have already been discussed above: We saw that the VEC was not active (table 1), that villagers knew very little about the local structures for impacting school policy (table 2), that the learning results were dismal (figure 1), and that the community’s perceptions about learning did not match the unfortunate reality (table 2).

The baseline survey provides some additional relevant data on the situation in the schools. From the school surveys (table 3) we found nearly all the schools had at least some textbooks, covered classrooms, a water source, and material, such as maps on the wall. As public schools they had all received some money from the government but only ten percent had received money from the panchayat. About half the schools had toilets, and less than a third had a separate toilet for girls. Sixty-nine percent provided midday meals (a legal requirement). Only 2 percent had electricity. Involvement of parents in school is limited—with only about four fifths of schools even holding a parents’ meetings. Very few parents make donations—although about a third of schools have had some parental volunteer input **.** Table 4 presents data on teaching resources, and teaching and children absence. On average, schools in the baseline had 3.2 teachers, of which 0.62 were Siksha Mitras. Headmasters and teachers were absent roughly a quarter of the time and in only 44 percent of the cases was a teacher actually teaching at the time of an unannounced visit to the school by the enumerators (these results are virtually identical to the nationwide results reported in Chaudhury et al., 2006<sup>13</sup> ). Children are absent a lot as well: only 53 percent of the boys and 50 percent of the girls enrolled were present at the time of the unannounced visit (Table 5, panel B). This is confirmed by parents: in the last 14 days, parents report that their children were in schools only 7.3 days (out of 12 school days). Panel A in Table 5 shows that most children are enrolled in school: only 7 percent of children aged 7 to 14 were not in school at the baseline. Given the poverty in the village, it is striking that a large minority of children (37 percent) are enrolled in private or NGO schools (mainly private schools).

There was thus considerable margin for improvement: more resources could have been provided (including Shiksha Mitras), and teachers and students could have attended more.

# **4.3 Empirical strategy**

# • **Intermediate outcomes**

Given the randomization, the basic empirical strategy is fairly straightforward. We first group each outcome into “families” of related variables (each family corresponds to a panel in our regression tables). We then regress the endline

> 12 Of 88 characteristics we scrutinized, only 3 were found to have statistically significant differences at the 5 percent level between the groups—i.e. somewhat less than would be predicted by chance. The three were the number of seats in the classroom (where treatment 1 and 3 had slightly more than control), the number of parents who saw education as a problem (where families in treatment villages were slightly less likely to say that education was a problem), and the distance between parents beliefs about what their child could do and reality. As a family, school facilities were not better in treatment than control.

> 13 Unfortunately, at the baseline, the random check did not collect data on regular teachers and Shiksha Mitras separately. However, this data was collected at the endline, and, in the comparison group, Shiksha Mitras were both more likely to be present and more likely to be teaching than regular teachers.

13