Due to evidence linking education and development, funding has been invested in interventions relevant to getting youth into school and keeping them there. This article reports on a systematic review of impact studies of these school enrollment interventions. Reports were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases and other methods. To be eligible, studies (1) assessed impact on primary or secondary school enrollment outcomes; (2) used a rigorous design; (3) were conducted in a low- or middle-income nation; (4) included at least one quantifiable measure of enrollment or related outcomes; (5) were available before December 2009; and (6) included data on participants post-1990. A coding instrument extracted data on study characteristics from each report. Standardized mean difference effect sizes were computed for the first effect reported. The sample includes 73 evaluations. The average effect size was positive across all outcomes. However, the results varied. Studies that focused on building new schools and other infrastructure interventions reported the largest average effects.
Academy of Educational Development Global Center. (2010). Success in primary school. Washington, DC: AED.
2.
BirdsallN. (1999). Comment: A vicious cycle. In TanziV.ChuK.GuptaS. (Eds.), Economic policy and inquiry. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
3.
BirdsallN.LevineR.IbrahimA. (2005). Toward universal primary education: Investments, incentives, and institutions. London, England: United Nations Development Programme.
4.
BloomH.MichalopoulosC.HillC.LeiY. (2002). Can non-experimental comparison group methods match the findings from a random assignment evaluation of mandatory welfare-to-work programs?New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
5.
BrembeckC. S. (1962). Education for national development. Comparative Education Review5, 223–231.
6.
Centre for Population and Development Activities. (2001). Adolescent girls in India choose a better future: An impact assessment. Washington, DC: CEPDA.
DufloE.KremerM. (2005). Use of randomization in the evaluation of development effectiveness. In PitmanG. K.FeinsteinO. N.InghamG. K. (Eds.), Evaluating development effectiveness (pp. 205–247). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
10.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.
11.
FilmerD. (1999). The structure of social disparities in education: Gender and wealth(Policy Research Report on Gender and Development, Working Paper Series, No. 5). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
12.
FilmerD. (2004). If you build it, will they come? School availability and school enrollment in 21 poor countries(World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3340). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
13.
FiszbeinA.SchadyN. (2009). Conditional cash transfers. Reducing present and future poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank.
14.
GlazermanS.LevyD. M.MyersD. (2003). Nonexperimental versus experimental estimates of earnings impacts. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 589, 63–93.
15.
GlewweP.KremerM.MoulinS. (2009). Many children left behind? Textbooks and test scores in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1, 112–135.
16.
GlewweP.MiguelE. (2008). The impact of child health and nutrition on education in less developed countries. In SchultzT. P.StraussJ. (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (Vol. 4., pp. 3561–3606). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
17.
GreenleafC.PetrosinoA. (2008). Response to Slavin, Cheung, Groff and Lake. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 349–354.
18.
HannumE.BuchmannC. (2004). Global educational expansion and socio-economic development: An assessment of findings from the social sciences. World Development, 33, 1–22.
19.
HerzB.SperlingG. (2003). What works in girls’ education: Evidence and policies from the developing world. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.
20.
HillmanA. L.JenknerE. (2004). Educating children in poor countries. Economic Issues No. 33. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
21.
KremerM.HollaA. (2009). Improving education in the developing world: What have we learned from randomized evaluations?Annual Review of Economics, 1, 513–542.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
MorganC.PetrosinoA.FroniusT. (2010). A systematic review of the evidence of the impact in the medium-longer term of the abolition of school fees in low-income developing countries. Protocol for review. London, England: UK Department for International Development.
25.
NewmanJ.RawlingsL.GertlerP. (1994). Using randomized control designs in evaluating social sector programs in developing countries. World Bank Research Observer, 9, 181–201.
PetrosinoA.MorganC.FroniusT. A.Tanner-SmithE. E.BoruchR. F. (2012) Interventions in Developing Nations for Improving Primary and Secondary School Enrollment of Children: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19.
28.
RogersP.PetrosinoA.HuebnerT.HasciT. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5–13.
29.
SchultzT. P. (2004). School subsidies for the poor: Evaluating the Mexican PROGRESA poverty program. Journal of Development Economics, 74, 199–250.
30.
The World Bank. (2004). World development report 2004: Making services work for poor people. Washington, DC: World Bank.
31.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2007). Education for all global monitoring report: Education for all by 2015: Will we make it?Paris, France: UNESCO.
32.
van der KnaapL. M.LeeuwF. L.BogaertsS.NijssenL. T. J. (2008). Combining Campbell standards and the realist evaluation approach: The best of two worlds?American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 48–57.
33.
WilsonD. B. (2011). Calculating effect sizes. Presentation at the CEBCP-Campbell Collaboration Joint Symposium on Evidence Based Practice. Fairfax, VA: The Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved September 09, 2011, fromhttp://gemini.gmu.edu/cebcp/SymposiumPresentations/WilsonAdvanced.pdf
