World Bank 2024

Public Disclosure Authorized
Girls’ Education at Scale
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/47/7118950 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024
David K. Evans, Amina Mendez Acosta, and Fei Yuan
Many educational interventions boost outcomes for girls in settings where girls face educa-
tional disadvantages, but which of those interventions are proven to function effectively at
large scale? In contrast to earlier reviews, this review focuses on large-scale programs and
policies—those that reach at least 10,000 students—and on final school outcomes such as
completion and student learning rather than intermediate school outcomes such as enroll-
ment and attendance. Programs and policies that have boosted school completion or learn-
ing at scale across multiple countries include school fee elimination, school meals, making
schools more physically accessible, and improving the quality of pedagogy. Other interven-
tions, such as providing better sanitation facilities or safe spaces for girls, show promising
results but either have limited evidence across settings or focus on intermediate educational
outcomes (such as enrollment) or post-educational outcomes (such as income earning) in
their evaluations. These and other areas with limited or no evidence demonstrate many op-
portunities for education leaders, partners, and researchers to continue innovating and test-
ing programs at scale. We discuss three considerations for incorporating evidence-based so-
lutions into local education policies—constraints to girls’ education, potential solutions, and
program costs—as well as lessons for scaling programs effectively.
JEL Codes: I21, I24, J16, O15
Keywords: education, gender, girls’ education, inequality.
Gender equality is a stated objective in much of the world: indeed, the fifth Sustain-
able Development Goal is “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”
(United Nations 2015). Education is a crucial human capital investment that opens
the door to subsequent economic opportunity. As a result, gender equality in educa-
tion is one crucial step—albeit not the only one—towards achieving gender equality
in life outcomes more broadly.
Girls’ education is often touted as one of the best investments in international de-
velopment (Kim 2016), and estimates of the returns to education for girls are con-
sistently higher than those for boys (Psacharopoulos and Patrinos 2018). But across
The World Bank Research Observer
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development / THE WORLD BANK. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial
re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use,
please contact [email protected]
https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkad002 39:47–74
many low- and middle-income countries, adult women on average still have less edu-
cation than men. Young women in their early 20s in South Asia and Sub-Saharan
Africa still complete fewer years of education than young men of the same age,
whereas in other regions, women have gained more ground (Evans et al. 2021). These
average shifts mask important differences across countries, within regions of coun-
tries, and across levels of schooling.
Why, despite higher estimated returns, do girls still achieve less education than
boys in some parts of the world? Psaki et al. (2022) hypothesize 18 barriers to girls’
education. Some of those barriers affect girls disproportionately in at least some con-
texts (e.g., a lack of sanitation facilities or gender-based violence in schools), whereas
others may appear to affect girls and boys alike (such as a weak academic environ-
ment or an inability to afford school fees). However, in the face of gender bias from
parents and teachers, these too can become stronger barriers for girls. For example,
household survey data from 30 low- and middle-income countries confirms that girls’
school attendance is more elastic with respect to household wealth than that of boys
(Evans et al. 2022), so girls’ education may be more sensitive to fees. Likewise, many
teachers retain discriminatory attitudes toward girls (Lee et al. 2019), but effective
interventions to boost the quality of teaching in low-income settings often involve ei-
ther detailed teacher guides or coaching (Evans and Popova 2016b), either of which
may reduce teacher discretion in how they deliver lessons and thus disproportion-
ately benefit students who were previously excluded. These gender-specific obstacles
provide a motivation for a particular focus on girls’ education in this study.
How can education systems achieve gender equality in education at scale? Evi-
dence on how to expand and improve girls’ education in low- and middle-income
countries has expanded dramatically in recent years (Cameron et al. 2016; Sabet and
Brown 2018; World Bank 2018). This review examines evidence from large-scale in-
terventions, usually implemented by or in partnership with the government, to im-
prove girls’ education.1 It focuses on studies demonstrated to improve either student
learning or school completion, as opposed to more intermediate outcomes such as
attendance or enrollment. It also discusses the quality of the evidence, where and
how different solutions may apply differently, and signals where more evidence may
be needed.
Our results show that programs and policies that have increased school comple-
tion or boosted learning for girls at scale in areas where girls face educational dis-
advantages include, among others, the elimination of fees or providing scholarships
or stipends, reducing the distance to school or facilitating travel to school, providing
school meals, improving the pedagogy of teachers through a range of inputs, and
interventions that help students receive instruction at their level of learning.2
We also discuss interventions that explicitly address issues faced principally by
girls. These include sanitation and menstrual health, gender sensitization training,
and safe spaces for girls. However, most of these interventions either have not been
48 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

implemented at large scale or have not been evaluated with a focus on educational
outcomes like improved learning and school completion. Nevertheless, we provide
evidence on the outcomes they do shift (e.g., girls’ mental health and in some cases,
their post-school transitions). Future, large-scale evaluations of such interventions
will allow a better understanding of how well such programs can be implemented at
scale and whether they shift the full range of educational outcomes.
In the discussion section of the paper, we propose three considerations—
constraints, solutions, and costs—for policymakers and their partners as they apply
evidence across different contexts. We also discuss lessons for scaling interventions
effectively.
These findings complement those of other, recent reviews related to girls’ educa-
tion (e.g., Evans and Yuan 2022a), the girls’ education sections of Evans and Mendez
Acosta (2021a) and Bergstrom and Özler (2022), and the systematic review of in-
terventions to improve girls’ education by Psaki et al. (2022). (Supplementary online
appendix table A1 provides a summary of findings from five different reviews.) The
current paper’s focus on at-scale programs gives greater salience to programs that
have been implemented by multiple countries nationwide, such as school fee elimi-
nation, school construction, or school meals.
The Challenges
The Girls’ Education Challenge
Inequality in educational attainment is a massive global challenge, but the nature

of the challenge varies dramatically across settings (Figure 1). For example, in low-
income countries (like Afghanistan or Mali), boys are more likely to complete primary,
lower secondary, and upper secondary education than girls. In lower-middle income
countries (like Bolivia or Ghana), girls and boys complete their basic education at
essentially the same rates. But in upper-middle income countries (like Argentina or
Thailand), while there is parity in primary school completion (at almost 100 percent –
almost every child completes primary school), girls are more than ten percentage
points more likely to complete upper secondary school than boys. As countries grow
more prosperous, gender gaps favoring boys disappear and girls even begin to pull
ahead. There are exceptions to the pattern at every level of income.
Beyond access, there are also differences in learning outcomes. The World Bank’s
harmonized test scores show that girls tend to have lower test scores than boys in
low-income countries, with a concentration in Sub-Saharan Africa. In most middle-
income countries, girls outperform boys in exams (World Bank 2020a). Likewise, be-
yond differences in the gender gaps in access and learning across national levels of
income, there will be differences in the gender gaps across income levels within coun-
tries, between rural and urban areas (Evans 2019), and across other vulnerabilities
Evans et al. 49
Figure 1. Gender Inequality in Education as Measured by Completion Rates That Differ at the Pri-
mary Level versus the Secondary Level, and Vary in Low-Income versus Middle-Income Countries
secondary secondary Primary secondary secondary Primary secondary secondary Primary
Girls 66
Boys 71
Low income
Girls 38
Lower
Boys 43
Girls 18
Upper
Boys 20
Girls 92
Lower middle income
Boys 91
Girls 77
Lower
Boys 75
Girls 26
Upper
Boys 30
Girls 96
Upper middle income
Boys 96
Girls 92
Lower
Boys 90
Girls 72
Upper
Boys 60
Source: Authors’ construction. The school completion rates for this figure are aggregates from the World Development
Indicators (most recent available year) for primary and lower secondary education, and from the UNESCO Institute
for Statistics (UIS) for upper secondary education. Group averages for the primary and lower-secondary levels from
the World Development Indicators are weighted by the population of children at the entrance age for the last grade of
that level. To provide comparative figures, the author compiled group averages from the UIS for the upper-secondary
levels weighted by the population by gender. The data were downloaded in January 2023.
such as disability or orphanhood (Evans et al. 2022). Given this array of parameters
across which gender inequality can linger, a middle-income country may still face
challenges to gender equality in education despite having achieved gender parity on
average.
This collection of evidence reminds us that the challenge of gender equitable edu-
cation is not a single challenge. Countries vary enormously in whether boys or girls
are ahead in education and therefore need special attention and resources. Further-
more, even in countries where outcomes are similar, there may be important differ-
ences that require distinct attention. While this study principally explores interven-
tions that have sought to improve girls’ education at large scale, no one intervention
will apply in all cases.

Table 1. What Policymakers and Partners Learn from Different Types of Program Evaluations
Scale
Small Large
Implementation Non-government Does the theory behind the Is it possible to reach large
intervention apply in this numbers of children and
setting? youth with the program?
Government Can existing structures Is it possible to reach large
implement this program numbers of children and
under careful supervision? youth through existing
structures?
Source: Authors’ construction
The Knowledge Challenge

The growth in evidence from evaluations of interventions on how to improve edu-
cation has been dramatic in recent years, with a 15-fold increase in studies between
2000 and 2016 (World Bank 2018). Many of these evaluations either focus on girls’
education or present evidence on girls education within the context of a program
that benefits both boys and girls (Evans and Yuan 2022a). Beyond methodological
differences (e.g., experimental versus quasi-experimental evaluations), this evidence
includes evaluations of various types of programs. Policymakers and partners can
learn different things from each type of program evaluation.
One way to categorize the programs evaluated is based on implementer and scale,
yielding four types: (a) pilot interventions implemented by non-government actors,
(b) pilot interventions implemented by government actors, (c) large-scale interven-
tions implemented by non-government actors, and (d) large-scale interventions im-
plemented by government actors (Table 1). For the sake of this paper, interventions
that reach at least 10,000 students or were implemented nationwide will be consid-
ered “large-scale.” We recognize that in some countries, 10,000 is a significant pro-
portion of students whereas in larger countries, that is not the case. Furthermore, the
line between government and non-government implementation is sometimes blurry,
with non-government support for implementation in government schools.
An example of the first type of study—pilot interventions implemented by non-
government actors—might be a program evaluation that examines the impact of set-
ting up parent-teacher conferences in a study of about 4,000 students in Bangladesh
(Islam 2019). The program was implemented by a local NGO, and it more than dou-
bled girls’ test scores by the end of two years. It points to a promising intervention
to increase girls’ learning, but it does not tell us whether it would be possible to im-
plement such a program at scale. Evaluations of this style of intervention can be
Evans et al. 51
designed to inform scale up, but how well the program will actually work with thou-
sands more students cannot be known with certainty (Banerjee et al. 2017).
The second type of study evaluates an intervention implemented at small scale
but using government systems. For example, the Government of South Africa imple-
mented a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 180 public primary schools, compar-
ing the provision of traditional teacher professional development with more interac-
tive, on-site coaching. The coaching boosted girls’ test scores four times as much as
the traditional training (Cilliers et al. 2019).3 Because this was implemented through
government channels, we can be more confident that it is possible to implement us-
ing teachers who have been recruited and are remunerated and managed through
the government system. This points to a greater confidence that the intervention may
scale (Gove et al. 2017), although implementing a program on a large scale still poses
significant challenges (Anderson 2018). The quality of implementers or of supervi-
sion may suffer. Large-scale programs lose some of the quick flexibility to course cor-
rect that pilots often have. At scale, there may be political pressure or cost pressure
to change what was a successful pilot model. Because of these challenges, large-scale
programs often report smaller impacts than pilot programs, as with teacher coaching
programs (Kraft and Blazar 2018) and other education programs (Evans and Yuan
2022b).4
Thus, rigorous evaluations of programs at scale are uniquely valuable. Studies
of the third or fourth type—implemented at scale, either in government systems or
through NGOs that have the capacity to work at large scale—provide the most di-
rect evidence of effective, at-scale interventions. Most of these evaluations are quasi-
experimental (e.g., Adukia 2017; Muralidharan and Prakash 2017). These evalu-
ations demonstrate that it is possible to implement the program at scale and still
achieve significant impact.
While it is possible to learn from all these classes of evaluations, the focus of this
study will be on studies that fall into the latter two categories, especially those that
are implemented by government at scale.5 Most education is provided by the public
sector: across low- and middle-income countries, less than 20 percent of primary ed-
ucation and less than 30 percent of secondary education is provided privately (World
Bank 2020b).6 As a result, interventions at large scale may be most sustainable if
implemented through public sector mechanisms. NGOs that achieve results at large
scale are also a key source of information for both policymakers and donors, al-
though sometimes programs implemented by non-government actors achieve better
outcomes than public sector programs, even controlling for sample size (Vivalt 2020).
The Methods Used for This Review

This is a narrative review of evidence of large-scale efforts to improve girls’ education.
The research team searched for evaluations set in low- and middle-income countries

that met three main criteria: (a) the evaluation reports impacts (either completion
or learning) for girls, (b) the program or policy evaluated was implemented at large
scale (at least 10,000 beneficiaries or nationwide implementation), and (c) the eval-
uations used a credible quasi-experimental or experimental design. The evaluations
were drawn from various sources, including both sources focused on girls’ educa-
tion and sources focused on educational reform at scale. We searched previous re-
views of evidence on girls’ education that included both small and large-scale stud-
ies (Sperling et al. 2016; Awasom et al. 2020; Evans and Yuan 2022a), the Millions
Learning initiative (Robinson et al. 2019), the J-PAL post-primary education initia-
tive, the “Learning @ Scale” initiative (Stern et al. 2020), and reviews on specific ed-
ucation topics (e.g., Read and Atinc 2018 and Bedasso 2022). The team selected (a)
evaluations that target girls specifically, (b) evaluations that target both boys and girls
but that report impacts separately for girls, and (c) evaluations for which an existing
review (such as Evans and Yuan 2022a) reported gender-separated effects that had
not been reported in the original studies. We shared an early version of this review
with scholars, funders, and operational experts in this field to capture any additional
studies. Our approach of reviewing reviews and relying on narrative review rather
than formal meta-analysis is common in the literature (see, for example, Sabarwal
et al. 2022; Table 1 and Evans and Popova 2016b).
We reviewed and encoded the outcomes reported by the studies. The principal out-
comes of interest were those nearer the end of the education production process:
school completion (primary, secondary, and general educational attainment) and
learning outcomes (literacy, numeracy, and related subject test scores). Other out-
comes, such as enrollment or attendance, were included only insofar as they were
instrumental to learning or to school completion, or in cases where other studies
of similar programs established impacts on learning or completion. Subsequent life
outcomes—e.g., income, fertility, or employment—were included in the relatively
rare cases that they were available. We include studies with experimental designs and
with credible quasi-experimental designs.
We include a discussion of studies that boost educational outcomes for girls in ar-
eas where girls remain disadvantaged in school—particularly Sub-Saharan Africa
and South Asia (Evans et al. 2021)—even in cases where both girls’ and boys’ educa-
tion increase together. In those cases, similar absolute gains may reduce inequality if
girls begin at a lower level: i.e., an increase in primary school completion of ten per-
centage points represents a higher percentage increase for girls if they begin at a lower
level of completion. Even in cases where the percentage gains are similar, sizeable and
significant gains to the quality and accessibility of girls’ education is likely to benefit
girls regardless of impacts on boys. Finally, we discuss the evidence for interventions
that commonly come up in discussions of girls’ education, such as sanitation and
menstrual health product provision, in part to highlight which of those areas lack
evidence at scale or with final educational outcomes like completion or learning.
Evans et al. 53
We provide a narrative discussion of the effects, organized into categories of inter-
ventions. The full list of studies reviewed, with details on the studies and findings, is
included in supplementary online appendix tables A2–A6. A subset of those studies
is included in the narrative discussion. In this review, we do not standardize effect
sizes across interventions: standard deviations in outcomes, while useful, can vary
dramatically due to factors separate from the impact of the intervention (Evans and
Yuan 2022b).
The Solutions
Make School Cheaper
Fee Elimination and Scholarships (Supplementary online appendix table A2

panel A)
Many studies demonstrate that eliminating school fees or providing scholarships can
dramatically increase school completion as well as learning outcomes for girls. This
applies in both primary and secondary school. While most countries have officially
eliminated school fees at the primary level and some have eliminated school fees at
the secondary level, in practice, families are often required to pay some sort of contri-
butions to the school, above and beyond the cost of school materials and transporta-
tion and the opportunity cost of sending children and youth to school (Williams et al.
2015). Girls’ education is often more sensitive to school fees than boys’ (Evans et al.
2022).
As an example of the wide array of impacts that eliminating fees can have, provid-
ing secondary school scholarships for youth in Ghana who had passed the secondary
school entrance exam but who did not have the resources to pay—so this is a select
group of students—led to more than a 60 percent increase in senior secondary school
completion for girls, along with a 50 percent increase in tertiary enrollment (from 8
percent to 12 percent). The scholarships also led to a range of other positive impacts:
Better test scores in both reading and mathematics, better national political knowl-
edge, media engagement, and a higher likelihood of having a bank account. Girls even
had fewer pregnancies (Duflo et al. 2021).
Different countries and programs have eliminated or reduced school costs in dif-
ferent ways with impacts on completion or on test scores. These interventions in-
clude eliminating school fees for secondary school girls in The Gambia—(Blimpo et al.
2019), providing vouchers to cover the cost of private secondary school in Colombia
(Angrist et al. 2006), and providing scholarships for girls in upper primary and lower
secondary grades in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Randall and Garcia 2020).
These programs can even have positive spillovers: a program that paid school
fees as well as other, informal costs (plus providing textbooks and life skills

training) for secondary school girls in Tanzania led to higher test scores even
for less poor, non-beneficiary girls who attended beneficiary schools and for boys
(Sabates et al. 2020).
Feed Children at School (Supplementary online appendix table A2 panel B)
There is a long history of evaluation evidence demonstrating that school meals boost
enrollment at school. A school meals program in Pakistan boosted school enroll-
ment by 40 percent (Pappas et al. 2008). There is also some evidence that children
across 32 African countries benefiting from a school feeding initiative were enrolled
in school at higher rates, with higher gains for girls (Gelli et al. 2007).
Evidence also demonstrates that school meals can boost student learning. In
Ghana, both math and literacy scores rose for all children on average, with larger
impacts for girls (Aurino et al. 2020); a program in Rwanda also led to at least mod-
est cognitive gains (Mensah and Nsabimana 2020). Likewise, a large-scale midday
meal program in India led to improved test scores in both math and reading for girls
as well as boys (Chakraborty and Jayaraman 2019). All of these interventions are
implemented at the primary school level, although some smaller school feeding in-
terventions do target adolescents (Drake et al. 2017).
Cash Transfers (Supplementary online appendix table A2 panel C)

Cash transfers are a widely used tool to achieve multiple ends: often the primary
goal is that of a social safety net—ensuring that low-income households have money
for essential needs—but they are often paired with further objectives related to
health and education, either explicitly through conditions that households must
fulfill to receive the transfers or more subtly through labeling and encouragement
(Benhassine et al. 2015). Programs with education conditions often require a par-
ticular level of school enrollment or attendance; in some cases, programs may in-
clude additional conditions, as with Bangladesh’s national Female Secondary School
Stipend Project, which conditions benefits on girls remaining unmarried and com-
bines a transfer with the direct payment of school fees (Schurmann 2009). There
have been many evaluations of cash transfers on education, and most of those
(more than two-thirds) do report impacts separately for girls (Evans et al. 2023);
but few report impacts on test scores or grade completion (Baird et al. 2014), which
is the focus of this review. Baird et al. (2014) report consistently positive impacts
on school enrollment for girls—with higher impacts for conditional programs and
slightly higher point estimates for girls than for boys—but smaller impacts on test
scores.
Evans et al. 55
Make School More Physically Accessible (Supplementary online appendix table A3)
Two classes of interventions to make schools more accessible—constructing schools

and providing transportation—have been implemented at scale with success and
have shown positive impacts (Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel 2020). The
benefits are experienced disproportionately by girls. Distance to school is a major con-
straint for many girls, especially at the secondary school level (Muralidharan and
Prakash 2017).
One solution to that challenge is to build schools close to girls. Several interventions
that have employed this approach have constructed schools with the needs of girls in
mind (i.e., “girl-friendly” schools). In Burkina Faso, building these types of schools
led to improved test scores and completion rates along with delayed marriage after
2.5 and then 10 years (Kazianga et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2016). A slightly smaller
scale program in Niger boosted test scores for girls (Bagby et al. 2016). Likewise, in In-
donesia school construction in the 1970s led to increased school completion, and the
children of those beneficiary women were more likely to complete secondary school
and even tertiary education, with slightly larger effects on their daughters than on
their sons (Akresh et al. 2023).
Another approach involves making transportation to school more accessible. In In-
dia, purchasing bicycles for girls led to a 40 percent drop in the secondary school gen-
der gap as well as a boost in test scores (Muralidharan and Prakash 2017). A smaller
version of the program for girls in upper primary school in Zambia reduced absen-
teeism, commute time, and teasing but had less dramatic effects otherwise (Fiala et al.
2022).
Teach Better
General Improvements in the Quality of Instruction (Supplementary online

appendix table A4 panel A)
In Kenya, a multi-faceted literacy and numeracy program was implemented through
government systems, with detailed teachers’ guides, training for teachers and head
teachers, teacher coaching, and literacy and math books for every student. The pi-
lot program led to impressive literacy gains in the early years of primary school
(Piper and Mugenda 2014). When the program was scaled up nationwide (an initia-
tive called Tusome), literacy gains were still positive and sizeable, with slightly bigger
gains for girls (Fraudenberger and Davis 2017; Piper et al. 2018a). A related pro-
gram in Pakistan boosted reading scores, with larger gains for girls (Kelly et al. 2018;
Chemonics International Inc. 2019). An early-grade literacy program that trained
teachers and librarians, assigned literacy coaches to work with teachers, and pro-
vided lesson plans and reading materials led to increased reading fluency gains for
students in India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Zambia (Alexander et al.
2016; Joddar 2018).
Target Children Who Fall Behind (Supplementary online appendix table A4 panel B)
In India, hiring young women to teach students who were falling behind in their ba-
sic numeracy and literacy skills led to significant gains for both girls and boys, as did
intensive summer reading camps or using one hour of the school day to group
learners by ability rather than official grade level (Banerjee et al. 2007; Banerjee
et al. 2017). In Ghana, the government implemented a related program with more
than 80,000 students. Various models of incorporating teaching assistants (many of
whom had no previous experience with teaching)—whether asking the assistants to
pull remedial learners out of class for part of the school day for special attention or to
provide the same attention but after school hours—led to significant gains in student
learning, with higher gains for girls (Duflo et al. 2020).
What about Other Teacher Policies? (Supplementary online appendix table A4

panel C)
Teacher incentive programs that reached tens of thousands of students in India
and Tanzania improved test scores, with significantly larger gains for girls in Tan-
zania when teacher incentives were coupled with school grants (Muralidharan and
Sundararaman 2011; Mbiti et al. 2019).7
Teacher professional development programs have a mixed record: a large-scale pro-
gram in China had no impact on student learning for girls, arguably because the
training was too theoretical (Loyalka et al. 2019). An educational program in Tan-
zania with a major focus on teacher professional development (along with other ele-
ments) led to significant gains in literacy and numeracy in the early grades of primary
school, with the biggest gains for girls (Ruddle and Rawle 2020). At-scale teacher
professional development programs often do not incorporate the elements that are
associated with the best student learning outcomes in smaller programs, such as in-
corporating lesson enactment by teachers into the training (Popova et al. 2022).
Deploy Effective Forms of Education Technology to Improve Instruction (Supple-

mentary online appendix table A4 panel D)
Many education systems invest extensively in education technology (or ed-tech), al-
though reviews have found decidedly mixed impacts of education technology invest-
ments on student learning outcomes (Bulman and Fairlie 2016; Escueta et al. 2020;
Rodriguez-Segura 2021; Evans and Mendez Acosta 2021a). The heterogeneity of
impacts likely derives from the fact that technology plays many roles in education:
technology can be used to improve the quality of instruction, to nudge parents or
students, or for self-led learning. Computer-assisted learning programs led to large
gains in girls’ middle school math and language scores in India, both at pilot and
at larger scale (Muralidharan et al. 2019; Muralidharan and Singh 2021), and on
primary school math scores in Uruguay (Perera and Aboal 2019). There is less
Evans et al. 57
evidence on educational television, although the existing evidence suggests that
high-quality educational television programming can boost cognitive outcomes for
girls in particular, although that evidence is limited to younger children (Mares and
Pan 2013).
It is with reserve that we include ed-tech among the solutions, since simply pro-
viding education technology does not promise gains. Several large-scale programs
have provided computing equipment and had no impact on student learning or other
outcomes, e.g., providing computers in Colombia (Linden and Barrera-Osorio 2009)
or laptops in Uruguay or Peru (Cristia et al. 2014, 2017; Yanguas 2020). Many
other technological innovations have been implemented only at smaller scale, with
far fewer than 10,000 students (Berlinski et al. 2016 or Duflo et al. 2012), or imple-
mented at scale but lacking rigorous evaluation (Dhar et al. 2016; Bajpai et al. 2019).
Gender-Focused Interventions
While many obstacles affect girls and boys differentially, several classes of interven-
tions seek explicitly to address obstacles felt principally by girls. Many of these inter-
ventions are not focused on academic outcomes, and so do not report school comple-
tion or learning outcomes. The primary motivations for investing in some of these
programs may not be to boost learning outcomes or school completion but rather to
protect girls, to boost their overall well-being, or to prepare them for life after school.
Sanitation and Menstrual Health Products (Supplementary online appendix table

A5 panel A)
Toilets for girls often arise in discussions of gender-equitable education. A national
school latrine construction program in India increased enrollment for girls, with sex-
specific latrines being particularly important for older girls. Girls sat for and passed
their official school exams at higher rates, although direct tests of learning did not
show gains (Adukia 2017).
Some of the reasons that sex-specific latrines often come up in discussions is
because girls may miss school or experience harassment during menstruation.
Estimates of menstruation-related absenteeism vary dramatically across contexts
(Benshaul-Tolonen et al. 2020b). In Kenya, providing sanitary pads (girls’ preferred
option) did reduce absenteeism under certain specifications (Benshaul-Tolonen et al.
2021). Relatively small studies in both Kenya and Nepal, providing a cheaper but less
familiar technology—a menstrual cup—did not affect absenteeism. Beyond absen-
teeism, menstrual hygiene materials are associated with improved emotional and so-
cial well-being in Kenya and Tanzania (Benshaul-Tolonen, et al. 2020a; Benshaul-
Tolonen et al. 2021). On net, the evidence for providing menstrual hygiene materi-
als on a purely instrumental basis (getting girls to school completion or higher test

scores) is weak, although the emotional well-being of female students is an impor-
tant end in itself.
Gender-Sensitization Training (Supplementary online appendix table A5 panel B)

Another class of programs that often arises when discussing gender equality in edu-
cation is training to increase the sensitivity of teachers, school managers, or students
to gender issues. To date, there is limited evidence evaluating such programs at large
scale or on outcomes such as school completion or student learning. A 2.5-year pro-
gram involving classroom discussions about gender equality among sixth and sev-
enth graders in India reported improvements in reported views on gender norms and
some self-reported behaviors (e.g., boys reported a higher likelihood of doing chores).
The program tested neither student learning (beyond on gender attitudes) nor school
completion (Dhar et al. 2022). Another program—Power to Lead—intended to pro-
vide training in leadership skills for girls across six countries, with positive qualitative
impacts on girls’ leadership skills (Miske Witt and Associates Inc. 2011). In practice,
more than 30 percent of participants were boys, and these reported improved under-
standing of gendered social norms (Baric 2013). Further research will be required to
see if girls achieve greater learning or school completion in the environments created
by these types of training.
Mentoring and Safe Spaces for Girls (Supplementary online appendix table A5
panel C)
Creating places where female students can engage without boys or men
is sometimes proposed as a useful intervention for girls (Megevand and
Marchesini 2020), although the outcomes measured are not school com-
pletion or student test scores. For example, a program that formed clubs
for more than 50,000 adolescent girls in Uganda and provided vocational
training and information about sex, reproduction, and marriage, led to re-
duced adolescent pregnancy and more engagement in income-generating
activities four years later (Bandiera et al. 2020a). However, an adaptation of the
same program in Tanzania had no impact on similar outcomes (Buehren et al.
2017). A program forming girls’ clubs in Sierra Leone—interrupted by Ebola-related
school closures in 2014/2015—dramatically reduced adolescent pregnancies
(Bandiera et al. 2020b).
A small-scale, government-implemented program providing girls-only secondary
schools in Trinidad and Tobago increased exam scores and led to more advanced
coursework (Jackson 2019). An empowerment intervention assigned “social mobi-
lizers” to schools to provide life skills classes and mentoring and has reached over
95,000 adolescent girls in nine countries. Dropout rates fell (Edmonds et al. 2019).
Supplementary online appendix table A6 includes a characterization of a handful
of other interventions with less evidence to support them.
Evans et al. 59
Discussion
In this review, we have presented various initiatives that have been implemented at
large scale, usually through government channels, resulting in large learning or com-
pletion gains for girls. In this section, we go beyond individual solutions and discuss
three considerations for selecting interventions to scale: determining the constraints
to girls’ education, identifying potential solutions, and calculating program costs.
Finally, we discuss how our results relate to the results from other reviews on girls’
education (not focused on scale) and end with some final reflections on scaling.
Considerations for Selecting Interventions to Implement and Scale

Determining Constraints to Girls’ Education
Education systems need to identify their key constraints. What are the weaknesses
in the education system? What is holding girls’ education back? In recent years, a
range of diagnostic tools have been deployed that have demonstrated challenges in
the education system overall, and some can be used to understand girls’ education.
Several tools measure student learning, including citizen-led assessments like ASER
and Uwezo, along with school-based assessments included in the Service Delivery In-
dicators and in national and regional exams (ASER 2021; Uwezo 2021; World Bank
2021). These can help identify which regions face the biggest gaps in learning. Like-
wise, high quality gender-disaggregated systems data can track student school com-
pletion rates. The Service Delivery Indicators measure the health of the teacher work-
force, with a focus on skills and absenteeism. If a survey demonstrates that teacher
absenteeism (or any other issue) is an important problem, additional diagnostics may
be needed to understand the reasons behind the issue, in order to design the most ef-
fective mechanisms. Additions to standard instruments like the Service Delivery In-
dicators can measure relevant issues such as teacher gender bias.
The next step is to understand the reasons behind high dropout for girls or poor
levels of girls’ learning. Psaki et al. (2022) propose 18 potential constraints, but how
is a researcher to identify which constraints are currently most instrumental in hold-
ing girls back? Local and international researchers conduct descriptive research on
the obstacles to girls’ education—e.g., the studies on the link between menstruation
and girls’ absenteeism cited above. Many such descriptive surveys draw on adminis-
trative data or regional surveys. Some household surveys ask directly about reasons
that girls drop out of school. Furthermore, most countries as well as non-government
organizations within countries are proceeding with policies and programs intended
to improve education (not waiting for all the evidence to be collected), and strategic
use of administrative data can suggest whether these programs are relaxing key con-
straints before they are scaled, allowing decision-makers to deduce which constraints
are in fact the key constraints.

A review of country-level efforts to promote policies that are more supportive
for girls’ education, such as the Girl’s Education Policy Index (Crawfurd and Hares
2020), can identify systemic exclusionary policies. Public expenditure tracking sur-
veys measure how well resources reach schools and can inform education priorities.
Identifying Potential Solutions
With the rapid increase of evaluation evidence, education systems have many so-
lutions available to them. What evidence should policymakers draw on in selecting
the best investments to boost girls’ education at scale? If there is high-quality local
evidence on effective solutions, then that can be an excellent source.8 If not, then
Bates and Glennerster (2017) propose a four-step framework for deciding if evidence
of an effective program in one place will apply in another: (a) understand the the-
ory behind the original program; (b) verify that conditions in the new location hold
for the same theory to apply; (c) weigh the strength of the evidence that the same
mechanism would work to change behavior in the new location; and (d) determine
the likelihood that the program can be effectively implemented in the new location.
This process involves drawing on a mix of the most rigorous evidence from anywhere
and the best available local evidence.
No policy or program operates in a vacuum, so a key, iterative interplay between
constraints and solutions will entail examining proposed solutions in the context of
existing policies and how they are likely to interact. Effective overall education system
reforms that deliver significant gains to girls as well as boys, like those documented
in Finland over several decades (Sahlberg et al. 2021) or the Brazilian state of Ceará
over a shorter period (Loureiro et al. 2020), require a collection of solutions.
Like all reviews, this study is limited by those areas that have been evaluated. Edu-
cation systems should continue to innovate. Some of that innovation may be in adapt-
ing within areas already shown to be effective. Reducing education costs for girls, for
example, may be accomplished in various ways, and new innovations may yet ac-
complish this even more effectively. However, there are other areas that have not been
effective at scale across multiple settings, like distribution of computer equipment ei-
ther without plans or capability to integrate it fully into the system or without ac-
companying investments in the complementary technologies needed to deliver gains
in learning. These should be avoided.
Bringing constraints and solutions together allows us to ask: Which initiatives
should governments attempt to replicate in new contexts? The answer comes down
to the economist’s favorite answer: it depends. Let us demonstrate with two examples.
When is school construction an effective intervention? In Benin in the 1990s, the
government or NGOs constructed more than 1,500 new schools, and enrollment
surged by almost 200,000 students, driven mostly by girls. But the increase in en-
rollment was concentrated in rural areas, where there were fewer schools before the
Evans et al. 61
construction boom (Deschênes and Hotte 2019). The interventions characterized in
this paper where school construction was effective, in Burkina Faso and Niger and In-
donesia, were in locations or times where schools were scarcer. Is school construction
a good bet? Yes, if there are few schools.
When is school feeding an effective intervention? In contrast to the examples we
highlighted above, a large-scale school feeding program in Chile had no impact on
learning outcomes (McEwan 2013). (That evaluation did not report outcomes by
gender, so it was not included in this review.) Why did it have no impact? Chile had
already eliminated extreme malnutrition and educational outcomes were relatively
strong. School feeding is a powerful tool, but only in places where children face this
need. Is school feeding a good bet for improving learning outcomes? Yes, if children
are malnourished. Ultimately, the most effective intervention in a given location will
depend on the circumstances of that location.
Calculating Program Costs

Every new program and most new policies come with a price tag. Ultimately, we care
about both effectiveness in delivering gender equality in education and about cost-
effectiveness. By definition, the most cost-effective interventions deliver the biggest
gains per dollar spent. But cost-effective interventions that deliver small gains, while
often worth doing because of low costs, will not be sufficient to close gender gaps.
So an information campaign that costs little may be worth doing because of a high
benefit-cost ratio, but a school feeding program or a school fee elimination program
will cost much more but may—depending on the constraints—deliver larger gains
as well. (Programs like cash transfers and school feeding programs may appear less
cost effective purely in terms of education gains because many of their benefits extend
beyond the education sector.)
A minority of evaluations report costs, but the proportion appears to be growing
over time (McEwan 2015; Evans and Mendez Acosta 2021a). Yet just like impact esti-
mates, costs for the same program can vary significantly across contexts (Evans and
Popova 2016a). Just as with the four-step approach for adapting impact estimates
across contexts, education teams and those who support them can also adapt cost
estimates across contexts as well. Careful costing exercises include a list of the ingre-
dients that play into a given intervention, and policy advisors can use those lists to
roughly price out how much each ingredient would cost in a new context.
How Do the Findings of This Review Relate to Other Reviews on Girls’ Education?
Several other reviews have explored how to expand or improve education for girls,
including Tembon and Fort (2008), Unterhalter et al. (2014), Sperling et al. (2016),
Psaki et al. (2022), Evans and Yuan (2022a), and Bergstrom and Özler (2022). None

of those reviews has focused on educational outcomes closer to the end of the educa-
tion process (completion and learning), nor has any focused principally on programs
at scale. In Supplementary online appendix table A1, we summarize the recommen-
dations of each of those reviews. All previous reviews highlight the value of elim-
inating fees and of cash transfers, at least for access outcomes. Provision of food is
rated as effective by Psaki et al. (2022) and Bergstrom and Özler (2022), and promis-
ing by Unterhalter et al. (2014). The majority of the reviews also highlight the role
of teaching quality (i.e., pedagogy), especially efforts to provide academic support for
those lagging behind (i.e., remedial education). Other reviews are more conclusive
than ours on the role of sanitation, likely because most impacts measured for sanita-
tion have been enrollment or absenteeism, which are not our target outcomes.
Psaki et al. (2022) also highlight several areas where there are evidence gaps, in-
cluding programs to reduce adolescent marriage, school-based health programs, and
many others. The gaps are even more abundant when we limit ourselves to studies
at scale, which is a reminder that there is still much room to innovate and evaluate.
Some areas that seem like they could be effective lack any evidence at all: for example,
information campaigns about the returns to education have in some contexts been
cost-effective at boosting test scores and increasing access (Angrist et al. 2020), but
we are not aware of any evaluations of campaigns focused on the returns to girls’ ed-
ucation, even though those might be a natural extension of the existing success with
information dissemination. Psaki et al. (2022) similarly highlight “efforts to increase
support for girls’ education” among commonly used approaches with little evidence.
Reflections on Scaling
Based on the policies and programs that this review reports are proven to work
at scale, together with the existing literature, what can we learn about scaling?
Crawfurd et al. (2022) propose dividing policies or programs into two types when
considering scaling—those that are highly effective when well implemented but are
complicated to implement well (Type A), and those that may be less effective on aver-
age but that are easier to implement at scale (Type B). Among the solutions that we
identify—programs or policies that have boosted girls’ education outcomes at scale—
we have interventions that clearly fall into both categories: improved teaching is Type
A, and fee elimination and school meals are Type B. What our results suggest is that
even if Type A programs are more likely to see a drop in effectiveness relative to pilot
implementation when they are delivered at large scale, they may still deliver positive
gains for girls. One must not presume that a drop in effectiveness means a drop to
zero.
There are various reasons that programs may not deliver the same impacts at scale
as they do at the pilot stage: The program may change (the quality of implementa-
tion or supervision), the population receiving the program may change (less targeted
Evans et al. 63
beneficiaries), or there may be general equilibrium effects—i.e., the returns to what-
ever good or service the program is offering may change when more people are re-
ceiving it (Al-Ubaydli et al. 2021). Several of the programs and policies discussed in
this review suggest ways to mitigate these dangers. Scholarships and cash transfers,
for example, can be designed at the pilot stage to have a value that is sustainable at
national scale. Costs of scaling these programs are likely to be predictable. While they
are still subject to general equilibrium effects (when more people have a certain level
of education, its return may fall), but those will take time to manifest.
Programs to improve the quality of instruction or target children who fall behind
may be more subject to changes when scaled. For example, the multi-faceted literacy
and numeracy program in Kenya, Tusome, included teacher coaching as an integral
element of its pilot program (Piper et al. 2018b). When it was scaled up nationally,
teachers still received some coaching, but significantly less than planned (Piper et al.
2018a). Yet children still improved. There are other lessons from the relatively suc-
cessful scale-up in Kenya and from a less successful scale-up of a program in Liberia.
One is to test as many design features as possible in the pilot: the Kenya program tested
for the optimal ratio of coaches to teachers, the right degree of educational technol-
ogy integration into the program, and other elements. Another is to use government
systems to deliver the pilot in order to mimic the at-scale version as much as possible
(Gove et al. 2017).
While this review does not delve into the process by which programs and policies
were scaled, other experiences demonstrate that political momentum and political
champions are critical resources to ensure that programs acquire and retain legiti-
macy to survive changes in administrations. In Ceará, Brazil, arguably the single most
important factor in a successful education reform that dramatically boosted student
learning outcomes was consistent political leadership (Loureiro et al. 2020). In other
contexts, like Rwanda, substantive progress on girls’ education has involved rallying a
wide range of stakeholders—the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning, the president, the ruling party, and civil society organizations—
to the cause (Williams 2022).
Conclusion
This review has highlighted interventions for which there is evidence from multiple
settings that they can be implemented effectively at large scale and deliver positive
impacts for girls. These interventions can increase gender equality where girls are
disadvantaged. Gender equality in education and gender equity in education are dif-
ferent, related concepts. Equality may be associated with achieving similar education
outcomes for boys and for girls. Equity, rather, is associated with “fairness or justice
in the provision of education” (Espinoza 2007). Achieving gender equal outcomes in
education (e.g., gender parity in school completion or learning) may require gender

inequality in resources spent. One might also argue that, if women face greater chal-
lenges than men later in life, gender inequality in education may be needed to achieve
gender equality in later life outcomes.
This review takes an “effects of causes” approach, where one starts with interven-
tions or policies and examines the effects of those policies. An alternative approach
would be to take a “causes of effects” approach, examining countries that have made
great strides in girls’ education and seeking to discern the causes thereof (Goertz and
Mahoney 2012). This approach has been applied to understanding the quality of ed-
ucation in high-performing countries, e.g., in Vietnam (London 2021). Future work
can explore the causes of large gains in girls’ education, as some countries have made
impressive strides in short periods of time (Evans et al. 2021).
In this paper, we have also provided a discussion of gender-specific interventions
and guidance as to how to make sense of the large and growing body of evidence.
There is no guarantee that a given impact will replicate in every setting, but this col-
lection of evidence provides a menu for policymakers and partners that comes one
step closer to feasible implementation than previous reviews that draw on a higher
proportion of small-scale, NGO-implemented interventions. Achieving gender equi-
table education is an ongoing challenge, but there are proven solutions that work at
scale.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Varja Lipovsek and others on the Co-Impact team for guidance
and Radhika Bula for sharing studies from the J-PAL post-primary education ini-
tiative. Kathleen Beegle, Christine Beggs, Erin Ganju, Pamela Jakiela, Owen Ozier,
Dana Schmidt, and several anonymous reviewers provided useful comments. Emma
Cameron provided helpful research assistance.
Funding information
This paper was made possible by financial support from Co-Impact and the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation.
Conflict of Interest. The authors declare no competing interests.
Notes
Evans and Mendez Acosta (Center for Global Development); Yuan (Harvard University). Corresponding
author: Evans, 2055 L St NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
1. While this study focuses on interventions implemented through the government, there are coun-
tries in which non-government entities are major providers of education. For example, in Haiti, more
Evans et al. 65
than 90 percent of schools were not government-run as of the early 2000s (Adelman et al. 2017).
Some non-government providers make a particular effort to encourage girls’ schooling. For example,
The Citizens Foundation in Pakistan only hires women as teachers because of evidence that parents are
more comfortable sending their girls to school if they can be assured that the teacher will be a woman
(Naviwala 2019).
2. In this study, we do not distinguish strictly between programs and policies, as policies (such as the
elimination of school fees) are virtually always accompanied by a program (such as providing grants to
schools to compensate for lost fees).
3. The separated boy-girl impacts are not reported in the study, but they were communicated to us by
the authors. For girls, the impact of coaching on literacy was 0.15 standard deviations (SDs) (p = 0.10)
and the impact of traditional training was 0.04 SDs.
4. DellaVigna and Linos (2021) highlight that this pattern may be driven by “publication bias,” in
which statistically significant results are more likely to be submitted and accepted for publication in
academic journals (see section 4.3.1 of their study). Studies with smaller samples have less statistical
power to estimate an effect, so smaller studies will on average require larger effects to show statistical
significance.
5. Previous reviews have examined the full array of evidence. See Evans and Yuan (2022a) for one
example.
6. The numbers are 19 percent for primary and 28 percent for secondary. This is the low- and middle-
income country aggregate provided for 2019, the most recent year for which data are available. This
represents an increase from ten years previously, when the numbers were 15 percent and 23 percent for
primary and secondary.
7. Another class of teacher incentives provides additional financing to teachers who work in rural
or otherwise disadvantages schools. Those incentive programs, implemented at scale, are often effective
at moving teachers and sometimes at boosting test scores (Evans and Mendez Acosta 2021b).
8. If there is local evidence, Pritchett and Sandefur (2013; 2015) argue that less rigorous local evi-
dence may be more relevant than more rigorous evidence from another context. This requires at least two
caveats, however. First, in many cases, there is no relevant local evidence of impact (even non-rigorous
evidence). Second, whether or not this is true will depend fundamentally on the size of the selection bias
(which RCTs overcome) relative to the size of the impact of the program or policy. If the selection bias is
large (e.g., poor people are more likely to get cash transfers and sickly people are more likely to go to the
doctor), then non-experimental estimates may be less informative.
References
Adelman, M., P. Holland, and T. Heidelk. 2017. “Increasing Access by Waiving Tuition: Evidence from
Haiti.” Comparative Education Review 61 (4): 804–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/693904.
Adukia, A. 2017. “Sanitation and Education.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9 (2): 23–
59. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150083.
Akresh, R., D. Halim, and M. Kleemans. 2023. “Long-Term and Intergenerational Effects of Educa-
tion: Evidence from School Construction in Indonesia.” The Economic Journal 133 (650): 582–612.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac058.
Alexander, J., C. Kwauk, and J. Perlman-Robinson. 2016. “Room To Read: Scaling up Literacy
through Localized Solutions across Asia and Africa.” Center for Universal Education at Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-Room-to-Read-Case-Study.pdf .
Al-Ubaydli, O., M. S. Lee, J. A. List, and D. Suskind. 2021. “The Science of Using Science: A New Frame-
work for Understanding the Threats to Scaling Evidence-Based Policies.” In The Scale-Up Effect in Early
Childhood and Public Policy, edited by J. List, D. Suskind, and L. Supplee, 102–24. Routledge.

Anderson, J. 2018. “We Know How To Make Programs That Help Poor Kids. The Hard Part Is Scal-
ing up.” Quartz, May 9. https://qz.com/1269399/we-know-how-to-make-programs-that-help-poor-
kids-the-hard-part-is-scaling-up/.
Angrist, J., E. Bettinger, and M. Kremer. 2006. “Long-Term Educational Consequences of Secondary
School Vouchers: Evidence from Administrative Records in Colombia.” American Economic Review 96
(3): 847–62. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.3.847.
Angrist, N., D. Evans, D. Filmer, R. Glennerster, H. Rogers, and S. Sabarwal. 2020. “How To
Improve Education Outcomes Most Efficiently? A Comparison of 150 Interventions Using the
New Learning-Adjusted Years of Schooling Metric.” Center for Global Development Work-
ing Paper. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/how-improve-education-outcomes-most-efficiently-
comparison-150-interventions-using-new.
ASER. 2021. “ASER Centre: Evidence for Action.” https://www.asercentre.org/.
Aurino, E., A. Gelli, C. Adamba, I. Osei-Akoto, and H. Alderman. 2020. “Food for Thought? Experimen-
tal Evidence on the Learning Impacts of a Large-Scale School Feeding Program.” Journal of Human
Resources, 1019. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.3.1019-10515R1.
Awasom, A., M. E. Mpofu, M. Mutanguha, M. Muyatwa, and P. L. Sihwa. 2020. “Co- Impact Research
Proposal- Gender Equitable Educational Outcomes.” Manuscript. Global Office Consulting.
Bagby, E., A. Dumitrescu, C. Orfield, and M. Sloan. 2016. “Long-Term Evaluation of the IMAGINE
Project in Niger (English Version).” Mathematica Policy Research, June. https://www.mathematica.
org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/imagine-report-english-june-2016.
Baird, S., F. H. G. Ferreira, B. Özler, and M. Woolcock. 2014. “Conditional, Unconditional and
Everything in between: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes on
Schooling Outcomes.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 6 (1): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19439342.2014.890362.
Bajpai, N., J. Biberman, and A. Sharma. 2019. “Information and Communications Technology in the
Education Sector in India.” ICT Working Papers, Center for Sustainable Development, Earth Institute,
Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-9anm-mc81.
Bandiera, O., N. Buehren, R. Burgess, M. Goldstein, S. Gulesci, I. Rasul, and M. Sulaiman. 2020a.
“Women’s Empowerment in Action: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Africa.” American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12 (1): 210–59. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170416.
Bandiera, O., N. Buehren, M. Goldstein, I. Rasul, and A. Smurra. 2020b. “Do School Clo-
sures during an Epidemic Have Persistent Effects? Evidence from Sierra Leone in the Time of
Ebola.” Manuscript. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/research-paper/working-
paper_720_School-Closures-During-Epidemic_Sierra-Leone_July2020.pdf .
Banerjee, A., R. Banerji, J. Berry, E. Duflo, H. Kannan, S. Mukerji, M. Shotland, and M. Walton. 2017.
“From Proof of Concept to Scalable Policies: Challenges and Solutions, with an Application.” Journal
of Economic Perspectives 31 (4): 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.4.73.
Banerjee, A. V., S. Cole, E. Duflo, and L. Linden. 2007. “Remedying Education: Evidence from
Two Randomized Experiments in India.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (3): 1235–64.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235.
Baric, S. 2013. “Where the Boys Are: Engaging Young Adolescent Boys in Support of Girls’
Education and Leadership.” Gender & Development 21 (1): 147–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13552074.2013.769777.
Bates, M. A., and R. Glennerster. 2017. “The Generalizability Puzzle.” Stanford Social Innovation Review.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_generalizability_puzzle.
Bedasso, B. 2022. “Chapter 2. Feed all the Kids.” In Schooling for All: Feasible Strategies to Achieve Uni-
versal Education, edited by J. Sandefur. Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/
default/files/schooling-for-all-feasible-strategies-universal-eduction.pdf#page=42.
Evans et al. 67
Benhassine, N., F. Devoto, E. Duflo, P. Dupas, and V. Pouliquen. 2015. “Turning a Shove into a Nudge?
A ‘Labeled Cash Transfer’ for Education.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7 (3): 86–125.
https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130225.
Benshaul-Tolonen, A., S. Aguilar-Gomez, N. H. Batzer, R. Cai, and E. C. Nyanza. 2020a. “Period Teasing,
Stigma and Knowledge: A Survey of Adolescent Boys and Girls in Northern Tanzania.” PLOS ONE
15 (10): e0239914. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239914.
Benshaul-Tolonen, A., G. Zulaika, E. Nyothach, C. Odour, L. Mason, D. Obor, K. T. Alexander,
K. F. Laserson, and P. Phillips-Howard. 2021. “Sanitary Products, Absenteeism and Psychoso-
cial Well-Being: Evidence from a Three-Arm Cluster Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study in
Western Kenya.” Working Paper. CDEP-CGEG Working Paper Series No. 93. https://anjatolonen.
files.wordpress.com/2021/03/wp93tolonen.pdf .
Benshaul-Tolonen, A., G. Zulaika, M. Sommer, and P. A. Phillips-Howard. 2020b. “Measuring
Menstruation-Related Absenteeism among Adolescents in Low-Income Countries.” In The Palgrave
Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies, edited by C. Bobel, I. T. Winkler, B. Fahs, K. A. Hasson, E.
A. Kissling and T.-A. Roberts, 705–23. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
0614-7_52.
Bergstrom, K., and B. Özler. 2022. “Improving the Well-Being of Adolescent Girls in Developing Coun-
tries.” World Bank Research Observer. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkac007.
Berlinski, S., M. Busso, T. Dinkelman, and C. Martinez. 2016. “Reducing Parent-School Information
Gaps and Improving Education Outcomes: Evidence from High Frequency Text Messaging in Chile.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58778bfa40f0b60e4c000135/726__Reducing-
Parent-School-information-gap_BBDM-Dec2016.pdf .
Blimpo, M. P., O. Gajigo, and T. Pugatch. 2019. “Financial Constraints and Girls’ Secondary Education:
Evidence from School Fee Elimination in the Gambia.” The World Bank Economic Review 33 (1): 185–
208. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhw051.
Buehren, N., M. P. Goldstein, S. Gulesci, M. Sulaiman, and V. Yam. 2017. “Evaluation of an Adolescent
Development Program for Girls in Tanzania.” Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS7961, World
Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/245071486474542369/
Evaluation-of-an-adolescent-development-program-for-girls-in-Tanzania.
Bulman, G., and R. W. Fairlie. 2016. “Chapter 5: Technology and Education: Computers, Software,
and the Internet.” In Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 5, edited by E. A. Hanushek,
S. Machin, and L. Woessman, 239–80. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-
7.00005-1.
Cameron, D. B., A. Mishra, and A. N. Brown. 2016. “The Growth of Impact Evaluation for Interna-
tional Development: How Much Have We Learned?” Journal of Development Effectiveness 8 (1): 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2015.1034156.
Chakraborty, T., and R. Jayaraman. 2019. “School Feeding and Learning Achievement: Evidence
from India’s Midday Meal Program.” Journal of Development Economics 139 (June): 249–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.10.011.
Chemonics International Inc. 2019. “Sindh Reading Program: Final Report.” https://chemonics.com/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Pakistan-SRP_FinalReport_2019.pdf .
Cilliers, J., B. Fleisch, C. Prinsloo, and S. Taylor. 2019. “How To Improve Teaching Practice? An Experi-
mental Comparison of Centralized Training and in-Classroom Coaching.” Journal of Human Resources
56 (3): 0618–9538R1. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.3.0618-9538R1.
Crawfurd, L., and S. Hares. 2020. “Introducing the Girl’s Education Policy Index.” https://www.
cgdev.org/blog/introducing-girls-education-policy-index.
Crawfurd, L., S. Hares, and J. Sandefur. 2022. “Chapter 1. What Has Worked at Scale?” In Schooling
for All: Feasible Strategies to Achieve Universal Education, edited by J. Sandefur. Center for Global

Development. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/schooling-for-all-feasible-strategies-
universal-eduction.pdf#page=17.
Cristia, J., A. Czerwonko, and P. Garofalo. 2014. “Does Technology in Schools Affect Repetition,
Dropout and Enrollment? Evidence from Peru.” Journal of Applied Economics 17 (1): 89–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(14)60004-0.
Cristia, J., P. Ibarrarán, S. Cueto, A. Santiago, and E. Severín. 2017. “Technology and Child Development:
Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9
(3): 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150385.
Davis, M., N. Ingwersen, H. Kazianga, L. Linden, A. Mamun, A. Protik, and M. Sloan. 2016.
“Ten-Year Impacts of Burkina Faso’s BRIGHT Program.” Mathematica Policy Research.
https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/ten-year-impacts-
of-burkina-fasos-bright-program.
DellaVigna, S., and E. Linos. 2021. “RCTs To Scale: Comprehensive Evidence from Two Nudge
Units.” NBER Working Paper No. 27594, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w27594.
Deschênes, S., and R. Hotte. 2019. “Assessing the Effects of an Education Policy on Women’s Well-Being:
Evidence from Benin.” PSE Working Papers, HAL. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/psewpa/halshs-
02179704.html.
Dhar, D., T. Jain, and S. Jayachandran. 2022. “Reshaping Adolescents’ Gender Attitudes: Evi-
dence from a School-Based Experiment in India.” American Economic Review 112 (3): 899–927.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201112.
Dhar, V., N. Nilekani, S. Maruwada, and N. Pappu. 2016. “Big Data as an Enabler of Primary Education.”
Big Data 4 (3): 137–40. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.29011.vdc.
Drake, L., M. Fernandes, E. Aurino, J. Kiamba, B. Giyose, C. Burbano, H. Alderman, L. Mai, A. Mitchell,
and A. Gelli. 2017. “School Feeding Programs in Middle Childhood and Adolescence.” In Child and
Adolescent Health and Development, edited by D. A. P. Bundy, N. de Silva, S. Horton, D. T. Jamison and G.
C. Patton, 3rd ed. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/
The World Bank. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525249/.
Duflo, A., J. Kiessel, and A. Lucas. 2020. “External Validity: Four Models of Improving Student Achieve-
ment.” NBER Working Paper No. 27298, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w27298.
Duflo, E., P. Dupas, and M. Kremer. 2021. “The Impact of Free Secondary Education: Ex-
perimental Evidence from Ghana.” NBER Working Paper No. 28937, Washington, MA.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w28937.
Duflo, E., R. Hanna, and S. P. Ryan. 2012. “Incentives Work: Getting Teachers To Come to School.” Amer-
ican Economic Review 102 (4): 1241–78. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.4.1241.
Edmonds, E., B. Feigenberg, and J. Leight. 2019. “Advancing the Agency of Adolescent Girls: Final Eval-
uation Report for Room To Read.” https://www.roomtoread.org/media/gkni2y0u/gep-evaluation-
2016-18-rajasthan-final-report.pdf .
Escueta, M., A. J. Nickow, P. Oreopoulos, and V. Quan. 2020. “Upgrading Education with Tech-
nology: Insights from Experimental Research.” Journal of Economic Literature 58 (4): 897–996.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191507.
Espinoza, O. 2007. “Solving the Equity–Equality Conceptual Dilemma: A New Model for Analysis
of the Educational Process.” Educational Research 49 (4): 343–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131880701717198.
Evans, A. 2019. “How Cities Erode Gender Inequality: A New Theory and Evidence from Cambodia.”
Gender & Society 33 (6): 961–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219865510.
Evans et al. 69
Evans, D. K., M. Akmal, and P. Jakiela. 2021. “Gender Gaps in Education: The Long View.” IZA Journal
of Development and Migration 12 (1): 127.
Evans, D. K., S. Carvalho, and A. Mendez Acosta. 2022. “Chapter 3: Which Girls Are Still Be-
ing Left Behind?” In Girls’ Education and Women’s Equality: How to Get More out of the World’s
Most Promising Investment, edited by S. Carvalho and D. K. Evans. Center for Global Devel-
opment. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/girls-education-and-womens-equality-how-get-more-
out-worlds-most-promising-investment.
Evans, D. K., C. Gale, and K. Kosec. 2023. “The Educational Impacts of Cash Transfers in Tanzania.”
Economics of Education Review 92 (February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2022.102332.
Evans, D. K., and A. Mendez Acosta. 2021a. “Education in Africa: What Are We Learning?” Journal of
African Economies 30 (1): 13–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejaa009.
———. 2021b. “How To Recruit Teachers for Hard-to-Staff Schools: A Systematic Review of Evi-
dence from Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” https://www.cgdev.org/publication/how-recruit-
teachers-hard-staff-schools-systematic-review-evidence-low-and-middle-income.
Evans, D. K., and A. Popova. 2016a. “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Development: Ac-
counting for Local Costs and Noisy Impacts.” World Development 77 (January): 262–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.020.
———. 2016b. “What Really Works To Improve Learning in Developing Countries? An Analysis
of Divergent Findings in Systematic Reviews.” World Bank Research Observer 31 (2): 242–70.
https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkw004.
Evans, D. K., and F. Yuan. 2022a. “What We Learn about Girls’ Education from Inter-
ventions That Do Not Focus on Girls.” World Bank Economic Review 36 (1): 244–67.
https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhab007.
———. 2022b. “How Big Are Effect Sizes in International Education Studies?” Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 44 (3): 532–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221079646.
Fiala, N., A. Garcia-Hernandez, K. Narula, and N. Prakash. 2022. “Wheels of Change: Transforming
Women’s Lives with Education and Empowerment.” IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion
Paper Series No. 15076. https://docs.iza.org/dp15076.pdf .
Fraudenberger, E., and J. Davis. 2017. “Tusome External Evaluation Midline Report.”
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MS6J.pdf .
Gelli, A., U. Meir, and F. Espejo. 2007. “Does Provision of Food in School Increase Girls’ Enroll-
ment? Evidence from Schools in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin 28 (2): 149–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650702800203.
Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel. 2020. “Cost-Effective Approaches To Improve Global
Learning: What Does Recent Evidence Tell Us Are ‘Smart Buys’ for Improving Learning in Low
and Middle Income Countries?” World Bank. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/
719211603835247448/pdf/Cost-Effective-Approaches-to-Improve-Global-Learning-What-Does-
Recent-Evidence-Tell-Us-Are-Smart-Buys-for-Improving-Learning-in-Low-and-Middle-Income-
Countries.pdf .
Goertz, G., and J. Mahoney. 2012. “Causes-of-Effects versus Effects-of-Causes.” In A Tale of
Two Cultures. edited by G. Goertz and J. Mahoney, 41–50. Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691149707.003.0003.
Gove, A., M. K. Poole, and B. Piper. 2017. “Designing for Scale: Reflections on Rolling out Reading Im-
provement in Kenya and Liberia.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2017 (155):
77–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20195.
Islam, A. 2019. “Parent–Teacher Meetings and Student Outcomes: Evidence from a Developing
Country.” European Economic Review 111 (January): 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.euroecorev.2018.09.008.

Jackson, C. K. 2019. “Can Introducing Single-Sex Education into Low-Performing Schools Im-
prove Academics, Arrests, and Teen Motherhood?” Journal of Human Resources, December, 0618.
https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.56.1.0618-9558R2.
Joddar, P. 2018. “Impact Evaluation of the Literacy Program- Partnership Approach un-
der Scaling up Early Reading Intervention(SERI) Funded by USAID: 2018 Endline Evalu-
ation Report for Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.” Room to Read, San Francisco, CA, USA.
https://www.roomtoread.org/media/p3nhkbhi/2018-india-litearcy-impact-eval-of-hindi-schools-
under-seri-partnership-approach-endline-report.pdf
Kazianga, H., D. Levy, L. L. Linden, and M. Sloan. 2013. “The Effects of ‘Girl-Friendly’ Schools: Evidence
from the BRIGHT School Construction Program in Burkina Faso.” American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 5 (3): 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.3.41.
Kelly, D., J. Davis, I. R. Morales, S. Kelly, S. Fuller, and E. Freudenberger. 2018. “2017 Early Grade Read-
ing Assessment: Sindh-Pakistan Reading Program.” https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TNK1.pdf .
Kim, J. Y. 2016. “World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim’s Remarks at ‘Let Girls’ Learn’ Spring
Meetings Event.” World Bank News, Washington DC, United States. https://www.worldbank.org/en/
news/speech/2016/04/13/world-bank-group-president-jim-yong-kims-remarks-at-let-girls-learn-
spring-meetings-event.
Kraft, M. A., and D. Blazar. 2018. “Taking Teacher Coaching To Scale.” Education Next 18 (4): 68–74.
https://www.educationnext.org/taking-teacher-coaching-to-scale-can-personalized-training-
become-standard-practice/.
Lee, J., D.-E. Rhee, and R. Rudolf . 2019. “Teacher Gender, Student Gender, and Primary School Achieve-
ment: Evidence from Ten Francophone African Countries.” Journal of Development Studies 55 (4):
661–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1453604.
Linden, L., and F. Barrera-Osorio. 2009. “The Use and Misuse of Computers in Education: Ev-
idence from a Randomized Experiment in Colombia.” Policy Research Working Paper No.
4836, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/
10986/4032/WPS4836.pdf?sequence=1.
London, J. D. 2021. “Outlier Vietnam and the Problem of Embeddedness: Contributions to the Politi-
cal Economy of Learning.” RISE Working Paper 21/062. https://riseprogramme.org/publications/
outlier-vietnam-and-problem-embeddedness-contributions-political-economy-learning.
Loureiro, A., L. Cruz, I. Lautharte, and D. Evans. 2020. “The State of Ceara in Brazil Is a
Role Model for Reducing Learning Poverty.” World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/34156.
Loyalka, P., A. Popova, G. Li, and Z. Shi. 2019. “Does Teacher Training Actually Work? Evidence from
a Large-Scale Randomized Evaluation of a National Teacher Training Program.” American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics 11 (3): 128–54. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170226.
Mares, M.-L., and Z. Pan. 2013. “Effects of Sesame Street: A Meta-Analysis of Children’s
Learning in 15 Countries.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (3): 140–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.01.001.
Mbiti, I., K. Muralidharan, M. Romero, Y. Schipper, C. Manda, and R. Rajani. 2019. “Inputs, Incentives,
and Complementarities in Education: Experimental Evidence from Tanzania.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 134 (3): 1627–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz010.
McEwan, P. J. 2013. “The Impact of Chile’s School Feeding Program on Education Outcomes.” Economics
of Education Review 32 (February): 122–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.08.006.
———. 2015. “Improving Learning in Primary Schools of Developing Countries: A Meta-
Analysis of Randomized Experiments.” Review of Educational Research 85 (3): 353–94.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314553127.
Evans et al. 71
Megevand, M., and L. Marchesini. 2020. “Women and Girls Safe Spaces: A Toolkit for Advancing
Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment in Humanitarian Settings.” International Rescue Committee
and International Medical Corps. https://gbvaor.net/sites/default/files/2020-02/IRC-WGSS-Toolkit-
Eng.pdf .
Mensah, J. T., and A. Nsabimana. 2020. “Food for Thought: School Feeding and Cognitive
Performance in Rwanda.” Working Paper. https://www.dropbox.com/s/n2ihgx4ofml0kkq/
Mensah%20and%20Nsabimana%202020_JDEsubmitted.pdf?dl=0.
Miske Witt & Associates Inc. 2011. “The Power To Lead Alliance (PTLA) Empowering Girls
To Learn and Lead: Final Evaluation Report for CARE USA.” http://careevaluations.org/wp-
content/uploads/PTLA-FINAL-EVALUATION-REPORT_MWAI.pdf .
Muralidharan, K., and N. Prakash. 2017. “Cycling to School: Increasing Secondary School En-
rollment for Girls in India.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9 (3): 321–50.
https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160004.
Muralidharan, K., and A. Singh. 2021. “Improving Schooling Productivity through Computer-Aided
Instruction: Experimental Evidence from Rajasthan.” RISE Conference Paper 2021, September.
Muralidharan, K., A. Singh, and A. J. Ganimian. 2019. “Disrupting Education? Experimental Evi-
dence on Technology-Aided Instruction in India.” American Economic Review 109 (4): 1426–60.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20171112.
Muralidharan, K., and V. Sundararaman. 2011. “Teacher Performance Pay: Experimental Evidence from
India.” Journal of Political Economy 119 (1): 39–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/659655.
Naviwala, N. 2019. “Why Can’t Pakistani Children Read? The Inside Story of Education Reform Ef-
forts Gone Wrong.” Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-cant-pakistani-
children-read-the-inside-story-education-reform-efforts-gone-wrong.
Pandey, P., S. Goyal, and V. Sundararaman. 2008. “Community Participation in Public Schools :
The Impact of Information Campaigns in Three Indian States.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6359.
Pappas, G., A. Agha, G. Rafique, K. S. Khan, S. Badruddin, and H. Peermohamed. 2008. “Community-
Based Approaches to Combating Malnutrition and Poor Education among Girls in Resource-Poor Set-
tings: Report of a Large Scale Intervention in Pakistan.” Rural and Remote Health 8 (1): 820.
Perera, M., and D. Aboal. 2019. “The Impact of a Mathematics Computer-Assisted Learning Platform
on Students’ Mathematics Test Scores.” MERIT Working Papers 2019-007, United Nations Univer-
sity - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/unumer/2019007.html.
Piper, B., J. Destefano, E. M. Kinyanjui, and S. Ong’ele. 2018a. “Scaling up Successfully: Lessons
from Kenya’s Tusome National Literacy Program.” Journal of Educational Change 19 (3): 293–321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9325-4.
Piper, B., and A. Mugenda. 2014. “The Primary Math and Reading (PRIMR) Initiative: Endline Impact
Evaluation.” USAID. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K27S.pdf .
Piper, B., S. Simmons Zuilkowski, M. Dubeck, E. Jepkemei, and S. J. King. 2018b. “Identifying the Es-
sential Ingredients to Literacy and Numeracy Improvement: Teacher Professional Development and
Coaching, Student Textbooks, and Structured Teachers’ Guides.” World Development 106 (June):
324–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.018.
Popova, A., D. K. Evans, M. E. Breeding, and V. Arancibia. 2022. “Teacher Professional Development
around the World: The Gap between Evidence and Practice.” World Bank Research Observer 37 (1):
107–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab006.
Pritchett, L., and J. Sandefur. 2013. “Context Matters for Size: Why External Validity Claims and
Development Practice Do Not Mix.” Journal of Globalization and Development 4 (2): 161–97.
https://doi.org/10.1515/jgd-2014-0004.

———. 2015. “Learning from Experiments When Context Matters.” American Economic Review 105 (5):
471–75. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151016.
Psacharopoulos, G., and H. A. Patrinos. 2018. “Returns to Investment in Education: A Decennial
Review of the Global Literature.” Education Economics 26 (5): 445–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09645292.2018.1484426.
Psaki, S., N. Haberland, B. Mensch, L. Woyczynski, and E. Chuang. 2022. “Policies and Interventions
To Remove Gender-Related Barriers to Girls’ School Participation and Learning in Low- and Middle-
Income Countries: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 18 (1): e1207.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1207.
Randall, J., and A. Garcia. 2020. “Let’s Go Girls!: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Tutoring and Scholar-
ships on Primary School Girls’ Attendance and Academic Performance in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo.” FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education 6 (3): 19–35.
Read, L., and T. M. Atinc. 2018. “Information for Accountability: Transparency and Citizen Engagement
for Improved Service Delivery in Education Systems.” Journal of International Cooperation in Education
20 (2/21-2): 35–65.
Reinikka, R., and J. Svensson. 2011. “The Power of Information in Public Services: Evidence from
Education in Uganda.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (7): 956–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpubeco.2011.02.006.
Robinson, J. P., P. Hannahan, and M. Curtiss. 2019. “Millions Learning.” Brookings. February 8.
https://www.brookings.edu/product/millions-learning/.
Rodriguez-Segura, D. 2021. “EdTech in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence.” World Bank
Research Observer 37 (2): 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab011.
Ruddle, N., and G. Rawle. 2020. “EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation: Final Endline Report.” Oxford
Policy Management: Oxford, UK. https://www.opml.co.uk/files/Publications/8383-assessing-equip-
t/1589895669_opm-ie-final-endline-report-final.pdf?noredirect=1.
Sabarwal, S., M. Abu-Jawdeh, and R. Kapoor. 2022. “Teacher Beliefs: Why They Matter and What They
Are.” World Bank Research Observer 37 (1): 73–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab008.
Sabates, R., P. Rose, B. Alcott, and M. Delprato. 2020. “Assessing Cost-Effectiveness with Equity of a
Programme Targeting Marginalised Girls in Secondary Schools in Tanzania.” Journal of Development
Effectiveness 0 (0): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2020.1844782.
Sabet, S. M., and A. N. Brown. 2018. “Is Impact Evaluation Still on the Rise? The New Trends
in 2010–2015.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 10 (3): 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19439342.2018.1483414.
Sahlberg, P., K. Robinson, and H. Gardner. 2021. Finnish Lessons 3.0: What Can the World Learn from
Educational Change in Finland? 3rd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schurmann, A. T. 2009. “Review of the Bangladesh Female Secondary School Stipend Project Using a
Social Exclusion Framework.” Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 27 (4): 505–17.
Sperling, G., R. Winthrop, and C. Kwauk. 2016. What Works in Girls’ Education: Evidence for the World’s
Best Investment. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt17w8hh8.
Stern, J., M. Jukes, and B. Piper. 2020. “Is It Possible To Improve Learning at Scale? Reflections on the
Process of Identifying Large-Scale Successful Education Interventions.” Center For Global Develop-
ment, March 2. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/it-possible-improve-learning-scale-reflections-process-
identifying-large-scale-successful.
Evans et al. 73
Tembon, M., and L. Fort. 2008. “Girls’ Education in the 21st Century: Gender Equality, Empow-
erment, and Economic Growth.” Directions in Development: Human Development. World Bank.
https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/Girls’%20education
%202014%20Unterhalter%20report.pdf?ver=2015-12-08-165815-117.
United Nations. 2015. “Sustainable Development Goal 5: Achieve Gender Equality and Empower all
Women and Girls.” https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5.
Unterhalter, E., A. North, M. Arnot, C. Lloyd, L. Moletsane, E. Murphy-Graham, J. Parkes, and M.
Saito. 2014. “Interventions To Enhance Girls’ Education and Gender Equality.” Education Rigor-
ous Literature Review. Department for International Development.” https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/
Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/Girls’%20education%202014%20Unterhalter
%20report.pdf?ver=2015-12-08-165815-117.
Uwezo. 2021. “Uwezo Kenya.” https://www.uwezo.net/.
Vivalt, E. 2020. “How Much Can We Generalize from Impact Evaluations?” Journal of the European Eco-
nomic Association 18 (6): 3045–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa019.
Williams, T. P. 2022. “The Political Economy of Girls’ Education in Rwanda.” Washington DC,
United States: Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/2022-
10/Rwanda%20girls%20education.pdf .
Williams, T. P., P. Abbott, and A. Mupenzi. 2015. “‘Education at Our School Is Not Free’: The Hidden Costs
of Fee-Free Schooling in Rwanda.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 45
(6): 931–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2014.938611.
World Bank. 2018. “World Development Report 2018: Learning To Realize Education’s Promise.”
Washington, DC. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018.
———. 2020a. “The Human Capital Index 2020 Update : Human Capital in the Time of COVID-19.”
———. 2020b. “World Development Indicators.” https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-
development-indicators#.
———. 2021. “Service Delivery Indicators.” https://www.sdindicators.org/#:∼:text=Indicators,a%20
school%20or%20health%20facility.
Yanguas, M. L. 2020. “Technology and Educational Choices: Evidence from a One-Laptop-per-
Child Program.” Economics of Education Review 76 (June): 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.econedurev.2020.101984.

Supplementary Online Appendix
“Girls’ Education at Scale,” by David K. Evans, Amina Mendez Acosta, and
Fei Yuan
Table of contents
• Appendix 1. Other Interventions
• Appendix Table A1. Evidence Map Based on Reviews of Interventions that Focus on Improv-
ing Girls’ Education
• Appendix Table A2. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that Make School Cheaper
• Appendix Table A3. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that Make School More Physi-
cally Accessible
• Appendix Table A4. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that Help Teachers Teach Better
• Appendix Table A5. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that are Gender Focused
• Appendix Table A6. Summary of Other Large-Scale Interventions
• References for this Appendix
Appendix 1: Other Interventions (Appendix Table A6)
Effective Interventions with Less Evidence Behind Them
Some interventions have proven effective at scale but have been rigorously evaluated
in only one or two settings, so policymakers and partners may feel less confident that
their success can be replicated elsewhere. For example, providing eyeglasses to stu-
dents in China boosted test scores equivalent to nearly a full year of business-as-usual
schooling for girls with poor vision, although girls were more likely to refuse the eye-
glasses than boys were (Glewwe et al. 2016). A program in India—implemented by a
large NGO—reached a large sample of mothers to either provide literacy for mothers,
train mothers in how to boost their children’s literacy, or both. All three variations of
the program had positive (but modest) impacts on primary school children’s mathe-
matical performance (Banerji et al. 2017).
Areas with More Limited, Mixed Evidence
School accountability, often involving publicizing either resources flowing to schools

or student performance in schools, is an important area. In a nationwide program in
Uganda, using newspapers to publicize the amount of funds that schools would be re-
ceiving from the central government boosted student learning outcomes, with appar-
ently larger effects for girls (Reinikka and Svensson 2011). But programs publicizing
results—at scale—have been less effective. For example, a program in India that facil-
itated meetings to discuss education and—in some cases—invited community mem-
bers to create “report cards” on learning status in the community had no impact on
learning outcomes for girls (or boys) (Banerjee et al. 2010). In Tanzania, a nation-
wide, low-stakes accountability program published school rankings: while it boosted
learning outcomes in the poorest performing schools, it also led those schools to ex-
clude students—both girls and boys, to equal degrees—from their last year of school-
ing, an unfortunate, unintended consequence (Cilliers et al. 2020). Many school ac-
countability programs that reached large numbers of students do not report impacts
separately for girls (e.g., Barr et al. 2012 in Uganda, Pandey et al. 2008 in India,
Andrabi et al. 2017 in Pakistan, and many others).
Appendix Table A1. Evidence Map Based on Reviews of Interventions that Focus on Improving Girls’ Education
Bergstrom and Özler
Reviews Psaki et al. (2022) Evans and Yuan (2022) Sperling et al. (2016) Unterhalter et al. (2014) Tembon and Fort (2008) (2022)
Coverage “82 experimental and “270 educational 138 studies that 177 studies that are Presents select 104 interventions from
quasi-experimental interventions from 177 constitute “a very robust “direct or indirect interventions that are 70 studies “that seek to
studies (88 papers) that studies in 54 low- and set of evidence of what intervention which “proven successful in (a) increase educational
employ interventions or middle-income works in girls’ address aspects of girls’ raising female attainment, (b) delay
analyze the effects of countries” (both general education” education and/or enrollment and childbearing, and/or (c)
exposures that address interventions and poverty and have been completion rates.” delay marriage for
at least one girl-targeted published since 1991.” adolescent girls in
gender-related barrier to interventions) that They classify the developing countries”
schooling and measure report impacts on girls. evidence available for
impact on girls’ Search covers studies different interventions
education outcomes” published before 2018 as strong, promising,
from 2004 to 2020 limited, or more
research needed.
How does each review rate the effectiveness of the following interventions?
ability to afford tuition Effective Effective in improving Reducing tuition fees are Strong effect on school Eliminating user fees “Cash transfers
and fees girls’ access (cash effective in increasing participation and and providing stipend conditioned on
transfer and subsidy) girls’ enrollment, but performance (cash and conditional cash schooling and
gains are not enough for transfers) transfer to girls are well-targeted are very
girls from especially proven successful. effective at increasing
poor households. enrollment and
Providing cash transfers attendance. Still
and stipends are effective if cash is given
effective in reducing the unconditionally, but less
indirect and opportunity so.” Scholarships and
costs of schooling. fee reductions seem
effective if targeted
based on both merit and
poverty. Mixed effects if
not targeted on merit.
Other schooling related
in-kind transfers
(uniforms, school
feeding, bicycles) appear
effective.
Appendix Table A1. (Continued).
adequate food Effective Promising effect of Effective, especially
school feeding on where enrollment is low
enrollment but and malnutrition is high
potentially negative
effects on learning in the
case of overcrowding
access to school Promising Effective in improving Building schools closer Provision of additional School construction is
girls’ access (reducing to girls dramatically schools has strong effect marked effective (“can
commuting time by improves attendance on girls’ enrollment and lead to very large gains
building schools closer and test scores. promising effect on in attainment in areas
to girls) learning outcomes where schools are far
away”)
More research needed
on impact of school
choice and inclusive
strategies (availability of
private schools might
widen gender gap as
boys get sent to
better-resourced
schools, differences in
outcomes across
single-sex vs
co-educational and
faith-based schools).
adequate school Promising
materials
water and sanitation in Promising Effective in improving WASH programs are Promising impact of
schools, especially toilets girls’ access (hygiene effective in reducing integrated water,
promotion and water dropouts and school sanitation and hygiene
treatment) absences. interventions
school-related Not enough studies Some promising More research needed
gender-based violence (evidence gap) evidence on increasing on the impact of
awareness and shifting interventions aimed at
norms are available. reducing gender-based
Girls’ clubs and safe violence on school
spaces can also improve participation.
gender-based violence
outcomes.
sports programs for girls Not enough studies
(evidence gap)
health and childcare Not enough studies Effective in improving Nutrition programs and Promising effect of “Unknown” effect of
services (school-based) (evidence gap) girls’ access (malaria deworming are effective iodine supplements and provision of sexual and
prevention) in improving enrollment deworming on reproductive health
and attendance. enrollment but services, and vouchers
potentially negative and subsidies for family
effects on learning in the planning and modern
case of overcrowding contraceptives. Mixed
evidence is available for
Promising effect of
interventions that
teaching personal,
provide information on
health and social issues
sexual and reproductive
linked with sex
health and family
education.
planning.
child marriage and Not enough studies Effectiveness of
adolescent pregnancy (evidence gap) removing bans on
pregnant girls attending
is “unknown.” Raising
age of marriage laws
has “no effect in Mexico
and mixed results in
Ethiopia.”
menstrual hygiene Not enough studies Interventions that Menstrual hygiene
management (evidence gap) provided menstrual interventions offer
supplies had mixed limited evidence of
evidence of impact on direct impact on girls’
attendance or scores. attendance
life skills Not enough studies Promising effect of Providing opportunities
(evidence gap) women’s literacy and information on job
programs that also offer opportunities are
life skills and safe spaces. marked promising.
“Training offered to
older adolescents or
out-of-school young
adults” do not change
schooling outcomes, but
often improve labor
market outcomes.
information on returns Not enough studies Providing information Raising education “Effects of report cards
to education/alternative (evidence gap) on returns to schooling standards and quality to on performance and/or
roles for women has a strong effect on improve economic attendance appear
school participation returns to female effective at improving at
education is included in least one of the
the list of successful following: test scores,
interventions. attendance, or
enrollment, although
focus of most
interventions is not on
adolescent girls.
Promising evidence also
suggests CCTs play a
beneficial role in
providing parents info
on attendance and
importance of
schooling.”
safe spaces and social Not enough studies Child-friendly spaces Girl-friendly schools has Evidence on educational
connections (evidence gap) and back-to-school a strong effect on school outcomes is mixed for
programs are crucial in participation. programs that provide
supporting girls’ life skills training,
education during mentoring, and
emergencies and conflict empowerment programs
settings. via girls’ club.
policy/legal Not enough studies More evidence needed Focusing “attention on “Mandatory schooling
environment (evidence gap) on the effect of engaging gender inequality by laws and length of
networks of women means of advocacy and school days” is marked
activists in influencing better impact evaluation as promising.
gender-equal policy research” is proven
development successful, so is promoting
More research needed to post-primary education
assess impact of for girls through fiscal
infrastructure incentives. Interventions
interventions combined that genderize post basic
with policy and education such as
institutional culture modernizing agriculture
change towards girls’ at the graduate level is
rights. also considered successful.
teaching materials and Not enough studies “Interventions that
supplies (evidence gap) solely provide classroom
materials seem
ineffective.”
community norms and Not enough studies Increasing parental and Involving women in Reducing cultural and Interventions that seek
parental attitudes (evidence gap) community engagement school governance and social constraints to girls’ to improve social norms,
toward supporting girls’ can improve enrollment community mobilization education is proven aspirations and
education and learning, but has a promising impact successful. empowerment are
programs often come as on girls’ school marked “promising.”
part of a larger package participation. Gender
of interventions so the mainstreaming efforts
impact of engagement is to change institutional
harder to disentangle culture is also
from the other promising.
components.
Women’s literacy
programs show
promising effect on
gender norms and
identity.
gender sensitivity in the Not enough studies Girl-friendly schools, Some promising Developing and “Interventions to make
school environment (evidence gap) often multi-component evidence shows that disseminating schools more girl
(teachers interact more in nature, could improve employing female “gender-sensitive school friendly, such as gender
often with boys and enrollment and teachers improve girls’ and pedagogy models” is separate latrines are
have lower expectations attendance, but more outcomes, but more included in the list of promising although
of girls; presence of research is need to research is needed to interventions proven more evidence is
female teachers) determine which study a wider range of successful. needed.”
components are contexts.
effective.
ECD and preschools Rigorous evidence is
“scarce” but some
studies suggest positive
effects.
teachers and teaching, Effective Effective in improving More and better Teacher training in “Structured pedagogy
including academic girls’ learning (teachers teachers are effective in “subject content, interventions seem
support for teaching at the right improving learning pedagogy and effective at improving
disadvantaged students level; structured outcomes. management” has a learning.” “We
and those lagging pedagogy: literacy strong impact on conjecture that remedial
behind intervention, mother reducing girls’ dropout. education for at- risk
tongue instruction, and Some promising impact girls could be promising
tutor software) of formal and informal but more evidence is
teacher training in needed.”
gender equality and
pedagogy on girls’
learning outcomes.
Group learning and
learning outside the
classroom (tutoring,
after-school clubs) has a
strong positive effect on
learning outcomes
Appendix Table A2. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that Make School Cheaper
Study Country Program Program scale Evaluation method Evaluation Result
Panel A: Fee elimination and scholarships
Angrist et al. (2006) Colombia Secondary school Government Randomized The program improved high school graduation (proxied
vouchers (Programa de program covering controlled trial by registration to the centralized college entrance
Ampliación de 125,000 students examination) by about "5 to 7 percentage points, relative
Cobertura de la to a base rate of 25 to 30 percent”, with similar effect for
Educación Secundaria, girls and boys. The study also finds positive evidence on
PACES) achievement of around 0.20 standard deviation in math
and reading scores.
Blimpo et al. (2019) The Gambia School fee elimination National level Difference-in- “The program increased enrollment for secondary school
program for female differences female students by 5 percentage points. The effects for
secondary students female primary school students were similarly
significant.” The program also increased the number of
girls taking the high school exit exam (one proxy for
completion) by 55 percent.
Deininger (2003) Uganda Fee elimination Government’s Fixed effects The program was associated with a dramatic increase in
national initiative primary school attendance (the probability of a child
enrolled in 1999 is 60 percent higher than in 1992) and
inequalities in attendance related to gender, income, and
region were substantially reduced. Furthermore, school
fees paid by parents decreased only at the primary level
but not for secondary.
Duflo et al. (2015) Kenya School uniforms Government Randomized "The [uniform subsidy] reduced the dropout rate after
(Education Subsidy) initiative: sample controlled trial three years from 19% to 16% for girls and from 13% to
size of the study is 10% for boys, and the girls’ teen pregnancy rate fell from
19,000 16% to 13% within that time period.”
Duflo et al. (2021) Ghana Secondary school National level Randomized Winners of the scholarship were 27 percentage points
scholarships controlled trial (60 percent) more likely to obtain secondary education
and they received 1.25 more years of secondary
schooling than non-winners. Girls also experienced
improved enrollment in the tertiary level (“female
scholarship winners are 7.7 percentage points more likely
to have ever enrolled in a tertiary institution on a base of
12.6%, and 4.0 percentage points more likely to have
completed tertiary on a base of 7.8%”). After five years,
scholarship winners had 0.16 standard deviations higher
test scores. The scholarships also led to a range of other
positive impacts: better national political knowledge,
media engagement, and a higher likelihood of having a
bank account. Girls even had fewer pregnancies (at age
22, girls with scholarships are ”7.0 percentage points less
likely to have ever been pregnant.”)
Appendix Table A2. (Continued)
Eyal and Woolard South Africa South African child National level Instrumental “We find that older teen beneficiaries have enrolment
(2018) support grant variable rates that are at least ten percent higher than
non-beneficiaries of similar income levels, and that
cumulative duration of receipt is associated with higher
enrolment. No impact of current or accumulated receipt
on attained education is found.”
Hahn et al. (2018) Bangladesh The program made The program Difference-in- “The stipend increased years of education for eligible girls
secondary education “covered more than differences by 14 to 25 percent [about 1.2 years additional
free for girls residing in two million girls schooling]. These girls were more likely to get married
rural areas and provided each year, was the later and have fewer children. They also had more
a cash stipend (Female flagship school autonomy in making decisions about household
Secondary School program of the purchases, health care and visiting relatives. They were
Stipend Program) Bangladesh more likely to work in the formal sector than the
government in the agricultural or informal sector.”
1990s and 2000s"
Lucas and Mbiti (2012) Kenya Fee elimination Government’s Difference-in- The program boosted primary school completion rates for
national initiative differences both boys and girls, with a larger effect for boys. The
program also increased the achievement gap by 1 percent
of a standard deviation for girls in government schools.
Randall and Garcia Democratic Scholarship, tutoring 100,768 Randomized Attending an intervention school improved both reading
(2020) Republic of and teacher professional marginalized girls controlled trial with and math scores. In particular, receiving a scholarship
Congo development multi-level increased predicted reading scores by about 3 percentage
(Valorisation de la modeling analysis points. “The achievement gap [in mathematics] between
Scholarisation de la students enrolled in control and intervention schools
Fille) widened over the duration of the intervention (i.e., girls
enrolled in control schools grew by approximately 3%;
whereas girls in intervention schools grew by nearly
10%).”
Sabates et al. (2020) Tanzania Financial support, 40, 219 Difference-in- Girls who received financial support increased their test
teacher training, and marginalized girls in differences scores in math and English by 1.10 standard deviation
community involvement 201 schools and 0.58 standard deviation relative to the control group.
(Campaign for Female These estimates are of similar magnitude for girls in
Education or CAMFED) CAMFED-supported schools compared to control schools.
For boys in CAMFED-supported schools’ math and
English test scores improved by 0.66 standard deviation
and 0.44 standard deviation, respectively, compared to
boys in control schools. Less poor girls who attended
beneficiary schools but did not receive financial support
also had higher test scores, as did boys, suggesting a
positive spillover effect. Girls who had their fees paid were
25 percent less likely to drop out of high school.
Panel B: Feed children at school
Afridi (2011) India National program National program Difference-in- The program significantly improved daily participation,
providing school meals serving about 118 differences but not enrolment, for children in lower grades. “the
(Mid-day Meal Scheme) million students average monthly attendance rate of girls in grade one was
more than 12 percentage points higher while there was a
positive but insignificant effect on grade one boys’
attendance rate. The impact on enrolment levels was
insignificant.”
Aurino et al. (2020) Ghana School feeding (Ghana National mandate Randomized The program led to moderate average increases in math
School Feeding from government controlled trial and literacy scores, particularly for girls (0.24 standard
Programme) deviation and 0.2 standard deviation respectively),
disadvantaged children (0.3 and 0.23, respectively) and
those in the northern regions.
Chakraborty and India School feeding (India’s National mandate Randomized Access to midday meals over the five-year duration of
Jayaraman (2019) midday meals program) from government controlled trial primary school increased test scores by 18 percent for
(“world’s largest reading and 9 percent for math compared to children
feeding program”) who received less than a year of the program’s exposure.
There is “no evidence of heterogeneous treatment effects
on the basis of gender or housing assets.”
Gelli et al. (2007) 32 School feeding (Food for Implemented in 32 Matching The food provision at school program contributed to an
Sub-Saharan Education) countries enrollment increase of 28 percent for girls and 22 percent
African for boys. The combination of food provision at school plus
countries take-home rations increased enrollment by 30 percent.
The provision of take-home rations appeared to reduce
dropout rates for female students, most notably in the
higher grades.
Jain (2018) India Preschool and At least “one million Fixed effects (logistic There is a significant positive effect on girls (ages 6–14)
supplementary centers covering regression) schooling who had younger siblings that received ICDS;
nutrition (Integrated 91.5% of Indian girls are three percentage points more likely to be in
Child Development villages” school than boys with younger siblings in the ICDS
Scheme or ICDS) program.
Kazianga et al. (2013), Burkina Faso Girl-friendly schools With government, Regression After 2.5 years, the intervention increased girls’
Davis et al. (2016) (BRIGHT) that provide about 130 villages discontinuity design enrollment by 19 percentage points, five percentage
school meals points more than boys, and increased test scores by 0.41
standard deviation.
After ten years, the program continued to have large
impacts on school enrollment and test sores. Primary
completion rates for girls were more than double in
beneficiary villages than in comparison villages (23
percent versus 9 percent); they were also much higher for
boys (39 percent versus 30 percent). Marriage rates for
girls were also much lower in beneficiary villages (33
percent versus 39 percent).
Mensah and Nsabimana Rwanda, and School feeding (Home "By 2016, the Instrumental An additional month of exposure to school feeding
(2020) other African Grown School Feeding program was variable analysis of increases student test scores on mathematics by 0.02
countries (HGSF)) implemented in 104 the staggered standard deviations, as well as on science (by 0.025
primary schools implementation in standard deviations), social studies (0.029), English
providing meals to Rwanda (0.028), and Kinyarwanda (0.023). The effects are
over 85,000 school higher for students with longer exposure to the program.
children." “The effect on girls is higher relative to boys.”
Pappas et al. (2008) Pakistan School feeding (Tawana Government Difference-in- Results from the program showed a 40 percent increase
Pakistan Project) initiative covering differences in school enrolment.
417,665 students
Panel C: Cash transfers
Alam et al. (2011) Pakistan Female-targeted cash Government’s Difference-in- Four years after implementation, girls who were exposed
transfer conditional on a national initiative differences and to the program at a younger age are three to six
minimum school regression percentage points more likely to finish middle school, four
attendance rate of 80 discontinuity design to six percentage points more likely to transition to high
percent (Punjab Female school, and five percentage points more likely to finish one
School Stipend grade. Additionally, exposure to the program resulted in a
Program) four to five percentage point reduction in labor force
participation for adolescent girls.
Amarante et al. (2013) Uruguay Cash transfer Government’s Regression There was no identified effect on school attendance or
conditional on medical temporary discontinuity design child labor for children between the ages of 14 and 17
check-ups, school anti-poverty and difference-in- years, as a whole or disaggregated by groups.
attendance and program differences
participation in
community activities
(Ingreso Ciudadano, the
main intervention in
Plan Nacional de
Atención a la
Emergencia Social
(PANES))
Araujo and Macours Mexico Cash transfer Government’s Randomized “Individuals with 18-month earlier exposure to Progresa
(2021) conditional on health national program controlled trial in early childhood have higher educational achievement
check-ups, school that lasted for over 20 years later (on average, 0.35 more grades attained).
enrollment and 20 years Results for higher levels of education are larger in
attendance, and magnitude and more significant for women, for whom the
attendance to probability of finishing upper secondary school increased
information sessions by 22 percent and the probability of university studies
(Progresa) doubled.”
Baez and Camacho Colombia Cash transfer condition National program Matching analysis Beneficiary children in households near the eligibility
(2011) on children’s school that covers 2.8 and regression thresholds are between 3 and 6.5 percentage points more
attendance of at least million households discontinuity design likely to complete high school than comparison children.
80% (Familias en
Acción)
Behrman et al. (2005) Mexico Cash transfer Government’s Simulations based Increasing attendance effectively at different levels
conditional on national initiative on data from a reduces dropout rates and increases grade progression,
“children’s regular randomized particularly during the transition from primary to
attendance to school” controlled trial secondary school. “A simulation evaluating the effects of
(Progresa) longer terms of exposure to the program indicates that, if
children were to participate between ages 6 to 14, there
would be an increase of 0.7 years in average educational
attainment levels and an increase of 21 percent in the
proportion of children attending junior secondary school,
with somewhat larger effects for boys than for girls.”
Benhassine et al. (2015) Morocco Unconditional cash National program Randomized In two years, the program reduced “dropout rate by 76
transfer “explicitly controlled trial percent among those enrolled at baseline; increased
labeled as an education re-entry by 82 percent among those who had dropped out
support program” before the baseline; and cut the share of never-schooled
(Tayssir Program) by 31 percent.”
Gazeaud and Ricard Morocco Cash transfer National level (the Instrumental “The program increased the probability of enrollment in
(2021) conditional on “school study sample is over variable/Fuzzy secondary school by 4.5 percentage points (equivalent to
enrollment and 8,700 schools and regression a 7% increase relative to the sample mean of 63.8%),
attendance” (Tayssir 900,000 students in discontinuity with stronger effects for girls (7 percentage points or 11%
Program) (also see the each year of the relative to the sample mean of 64.4%).” But “the results
evaluation of the earlier 2013–2018 period) indicate that continued exposure to the program during
version of the program whole primary school did not lead to significant
by Benhassine et al. improvements in test scores and in fact reduced the scores
2015) of boys by between 0.10 and 0.18 SD.”
Maluccio et al. (2010) Nicaragua Cash transfer National level Difference-in- In the first few years of the program, “children living in
conditional on children differences intervention areas and not enrolled in school in 2000
“attending School [at were more likely to be enrolled in 2001 and again in
least 85% attendance 2002” and “program beneficiaries ages 5–9 progressed
rate] and brought to 0.38 grades more, on average, than children in the
preventive healthcare control group.”
checkups” (Red de
Protección Social)
Muralidharan and India Cash transfer to buy Government Difference-in- Exposure to the bicycle program increased secondary
Prakash (2017) bicycle or a “conditional initiative covering differences-in- girls’ enrollment by 32 percent, reducing the gender gap
kind transfer” (Chief 160,000 girls differences by 40 percent. Additionally, exposure led to a 19 percent
Minister’s Bicycle increase in the number of girls sitting for exams and a 12
program, Bihar) percent increase in the passing rate.
Nanda et al. (2016) India Cash transfer Government Instrumental Being a beneficiary of the program increased the
conditional on girls initiative covering at variable probability of a girl remaining in school past the age of
staying unmarried until least 10,138 15 by 23 percent.
age 18 (Apni Beti Apna students
Dhan (ABAD))
UNICEF Nigeria (2017) Nigeria Unconditional cash Total beneficiaries in Difference-in- Unconditional cash transfers had a large effect on girls’
transfer (Girls’ 2014–2016: difference and enrollment (an average increase of 52 percent per
Education Project Phase 23,556 propensity score school). The effect on attendance was positive but not
3 Cash Transfer matching statistically significant.
Programme or GEP3
CTP)
Appendix Table A3. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that Make School More Physically Accessible
Akresh et al. (2023) Indonesia School construction 61,000 schools Difference-in- Exposure to the program led to more education (“for men
differences by 0.27 years and for women by 0.23 years. . .the results
for women are concentrated in primary school only,
which they are 4.1 percentage points more likely to
complete”). Positive impact was also seen for the children
of participants with a significantly larger impact for those
born to mothers, rather than fathers, exposed to the
program. The greatest impacts were seen at the tertiary
education level with effect sizes “indicating a 20 to 25
percent increase in the likelihood of the
second-generation child completing university.”
Kazianga et al. (2013), Burkina Faso Girl-friendly schools With government, Regression After 2.5 years, the intervention increased girls’
Davis et al. (2016) (BRIGHT) that provide about 130 villages discontinuity design enrollment by 19 percentage points, five percentage
standard deviation.
Di Gropello and Honduras Community school Government Multivariate “PROHECO schools do a better job of maximizing teacher
Marshall (2011) program (Programa program covering at regression effort and involving parents in the school, both of which
Hondureño de least 1,843 schools translate into higher levels of achievement. But these
Educación Comunitaria with over 69,000 efficiency advantages are offset (to some degree) by lower
(PROHECO)) enrolled in those levels of teacher experience, training, parental education,
schools as well as a reliance on smaller class sizes.”
Erten and Keskin (2020) Turkey National law that Roll-out of a Regression “We find that the reform increased maternal education by
increased mandatory national law discontinuity design one year, with stronger effects for women raised in rural
school attendance from areas. The increase in education among rural women led
five to eight years (1997 to a reduction in the perpetration of child physical abuse
Basic Education but only by mothers who were physically abused by their
Program) and own families during childhood.”
construction of new
schools
Kwauk and Robinson Brazil, Colombia, Alternative education 300,000 secondary Difference-in- “After 2 years, the test scores of children residing in SAT
(2016b) Ecuador, Honduras, (Sistema de Aprendizaje school students in differences and villages were 0.2 standard deviations higher than
Guatemala, and Tutoria or SAT) Latin America propensity score children in other villages, though the per-student cost in
Nicaragua matching SATs was at least 10% lower than traditional schools.”
Muralidharan and India Cash transfer intended Government Difference-in- Exposure to the Cycle program increased secondary girls’
Prakash (2017) to buy bicycle (Chief initiative covering differences-in- enrollment by 32 percent, reducing the gender gap by 40
Minister’s Bicycle 160,000 girls differences percent. Additionally, exposure led to a 19 percent
program, Bihar) increase in the number of girls sitting for exams and a 12
percent increase in the passing rate.
Appendix Table A4. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that Help Teachers Teach Better
Panel A: General improvements in the quality of instruction
Alexander et al. (2016) Bangladesh, Early grade reading and “Since 2000, more Random Effects “In Laos, grade 1 students experienced one-year gains in
Cambodia, India, teacher training (Room than 10 million reading fluency 12 times greater than in comparison
Lao PDR, Nepal, To Read) children have schools; and in Zambia, grade 2 children experienced
South Africa, Sri benefited from all two-year gains in reading fluency that were two and a
Lanka, Tanzania, Room to Read half times greater than children in comparison schools.”
Vietnam, Zambia programs in 17,500
communities across
10 countries”
Edmonds et al. (2019) India Early grade reading and “a program that has Randomized The program resulted to a decrease of drop out by 25
teacher training (Room supported more controlled trial percent and a 4 percent increase in grade progression but
To Read) than 95,000 girls in did not improve test scores or child labor outcomes.
nine countries”
Fraudenberger and Kenya Literacy program Nationwide Difference-in- The effect sizes in early grade reading outcomes for
Davis (2017) (Tusome) program benefiting differences Tusome between baseline and midline range from 0.40 to
over 2 million 1.07 standard deviations for the first batch and from 0.41
children to 2.57 standard deviations for the second batch.
“Though direct comparisons between this study and
other regional results is difficult due to methodological
differences in programs and assessments, the Tusome
results were found to be about twice as high as those in
Tanzania.” Gains were slightly bigger for girls than for
boys on several of the literacy measures.
Joddar (2018) India Early grade reading and Operationalized in Difference-in- Endline evaluation report shows beneficiary children
teacher training (Room more than 1,000 differences could read “37 correct words per minute on a test of oral
To Read) primary schools reading fluency” compared to “only 18 correct words per
minute” for children not in the program. “On a test of
reading comprehension, program school children could
correctly answer an average of one more question (out of
five) than comparison school children.”
Kelly et al. (2018) Pakistan Early grade reading 1.7 million students Difference-in- Program improved literacy “with a decrease in
program (Pakistan and trained more differences non-readers of 20 percentage points” in Grade 3 Sindhi
Reading Project (PRP)) than 27,000 language schools. In Urdu language schools, “Grade 3
teachers had a 25 percentage-point decline in nonreaders and a
24 percentage-point gain in students that met or
exceeded the oral reading fluency performance standard.
Grade 5 had a similar, albeit more modest, decrease in
nonreaders (9 percentage points) and increase in
students that met or exceeded the performance standard
(12 percentage points).”
Jaffe et al. (2014) Ghana + 52 other Digital reading program From 2010 to 2016, Randomized In an evaluation in Ghana, Worldreader students are 54
countries (Worldreader) the program has controlled trial percentage points more likely to read in Akuapem-Twi
reached 16 million and 39 percentage points more likely to read in English
in 53 countries. than control students.
Piper et al. (2018) Kenya Literacy program Nationwide Randomized “For letter-sound fluency, treatment pupils identified 47.0
(Tusome) program benefiting controlled trial and correct letters per minute (clpm) correctly, compared to
over 2 million scale-up evaluation 25.7 letters per minute among the control pupils.
children PRIMR’s causal effect was 21.3 clpm, or 0.73 standard
deviations. In oral reading fluency, the effect was 13.7
correct words per minute (cwpm) overall.”
Piper et al. (2016) Kenya Primary literacy Government Randomized The program had positive effects on reading and fluency
intervention (PRIMR) program that controlled trial in English (average effect size of 0.46), in Kiswahili
reaches 1,381 (0.35), and in mathematics (0.20).
schools or around
130,000 pupils
Panel B: Target children who fall behind
Banerjee et al. (2007) India Remedial education Over 350,000 Randomized “Increased average test scores of all children in treatment
(Pratham Read) students controlled trial schools by 0.28 standard deviation, mostly due to large
gains experienced by children at the bottom of the
test-score distribution”
Duflo et al. (2020) Ghana Hiring teacher assistants More than 80,000 Randomized All four different models increased student achievement
(Teacher Community students controlled trial (between 0.08 to 0.15 standard deviation). “The test
Assistant Initiative) scores of female students increased by at least 0.10
standard deviation more than for male students in the
three interventions that had a remedial or differentiated
component.”
Panel C: What about other teacher policies?
Chelwa et al. (2019) Zambia Teacher rural allowance National mandate Regression The study finds that crossing the hardship allowance
affecting all schools discontinuity design threshold increases the share of teachers receiving the
allowance by 40 percent. The study finds no effects on
teacher characteristics or on student test scores.
Kwauk, Robinson, and 39 countries Alternative pathways to 15,000 current Summary of impact “Students in Enseña Chile schools made greater gains in
Spilka (2016a) teaching (Teach for All) teachers, 50,000 evaluation by comparison to students in non-participating public and
alumni and through Alfonso et al. 2010 private schools in their Spanish [5.97 points] and math
them, about 1 Propensity score [3.68 points] test scores, as well as in their non-cognitive
million students matching and socio-emotional abilities.” They also found positive
effects of the program on student learning in other
high-income countries.
Loyalka et al. (2019) China Teacher professional National teacher Randomized The study found no impact of professional development
development (National program; 600 controlled trial and associated interventions to improve teacher and
Teacher Training teachers and student outcomes, including achievement, effort and
Program) 33,492 students in dropout, after one year. Furthermore, the study shows
300 schools that professional development content is often too
theoretical, and delivery is too rote and passive.
Mbiti et al. (2019) Tanzania School grants and Nationally- Randomized The program finds no impact on student test scores from
teacher incentives representative controlled trial providing school grants, some evidence of positive effects
sample of 350 from teacher incentives (0.06 standard deviation) and
schools (over significant positive effects from providing both of the
120,000 students) programs (0.23 standard deviation). Gains for girls and
those with baseline lower scores are significantly larger.
Muralidharan and India Teacher bonus based on More than 20,000 Randomized After two years, students in treatment schools performed
Sundararaman (2011) student performance students in the controlled trial 0.28 and 0.16 standard deviation higher in math and
sample language tests, respectively, than students in control
schools, with no significant differences for girls and boys.
Pugatch and Schroeder The Gambia Teacher rural allowance “148 hardship Regression Some gains for baseline top performers (by about 0.40
(2018) schools enrolling discontinuity design standard deviation in math and English test scores) but
29,723 students” no effect on average test scores.
Rajesh Raj et al. (2015) India Teacher training (Nali 13,691 teachers Matching Higher share of Nali Kali trained teachers against total
Kali) (multivariate teachers is associated with better language and math
regression) scores across four estimation models (4 percent increase
in score per unit increase in share of trained teachers).
Ruddle and Rawle Tanzania Education quality Six-year program Difference-in- The program has positive effect on both Kiswahili and
(2020) improvement with £90 million differences and math: children in Standard 3 moved up from
programme in Tanzania budget that reached propensity score low-performing to meeting Standard 2-level competency.
(EQUIP-T) 3.16 million matching The impact was largest for children who had the lowest
primary pupils performance levels. “The programme had a 0.5 standard
deviation impact on average Kiswahili scores and a 0.3
standard deviation impact on average math scores over
four years” with the biggest gains for girls.
Panel D: Deploy effective forms of education technology to improve instruction
Banerjee et al. (2007) India Computer-assisted Over 350,000 Randomized In the first year, the remedial education program that
learning (Pratham students controlled trial hired young women increased average test scores of all
Read) children in treatment schools by 0.14 standard deviation,
and by the second year 0.28 standard deviation,
compared to control schools. Similarly, a computer-
assisted learning program provided to fourth grade
children for two hours of shared computer time per week
also increased math scores by 0.35 standard deviation,
and 0.47 standard deviation in the second year.
Linden and Colombia Provision of computers At least 83,092 Randomized The program had no significant effect on test scores and
Barrera-Osorio (2009) (Computadores para teachers and more controlled trial other outcomes.
Educar) than 2 million
students
Cristia et al. (2014, Peru One laptop per child “Tens of thousands” Difference-in- 2014: “Results indicate no statistically significant effects
2017) program differences and of increasing technology access in schools on repetition,
randomized dropout and initial enrollment.”
controlled trial 2017: “The program increased the ratio of computers per
student from 0.12 to 1.18 in treatment schools. This
expansion in access translated into substantial increases
in use of computers both at school and at home. No
evidence is found of effects on test scores in math and
language.”
He et al. (2008) India English language Over 15,000 Randomized “The English educational techniques that we assess are
training program students in the controlled trial generally effective with all of the treatments generating
(Pictalk) sample gains of 0.25–0.35 standard deviations in English scores.
This is true across different combinations of
implementing technologies and both rural and urban
localities. Since all of these interventions (and in
particular the teacher implemented ones) are
inexpensive, these results suggest that changing the
curriculum in developing countries may be much less
difficult to do than previously expected.”
Mares and Pan (2013) 15 countries Sesame street Over 10,000 Meta analysis “On average, those who watched more (either in
children in 15 low comparison to other children, or in comparison to
and middle income themselves earlier) scored between one- and two-fifths of
countries a standard deviation higher, taken across the different
types of outcomes.”
Muralidharan et al. India Personalized Sample in the study Randomized “While test scores improve over time for both groups,
(2019) technology-aided is ∼ 600 students controlled trial endline test scores are significantly and substantially
after-school but “used by more higher for the treatment group in both subjects. . .We find
instruction program than 80,000 that students who won the lottery to attend Mindspark
(Mindspark) students” in the centers scored 0.36standard deviation higher in math
country (Tehelka and 0.22standard deviation higher in Hindi compared to
TV 2013) lottery losers after just 4.5 months.”
Perera and Aboal Uruguay Math computer assisted 800,000 laptops Difference-in- The estimated effect on math test scores gain of the
(2019) platform (One Laptop distributed. “By differences program was 0.2 standard deviation. There was no
per Child/Mathematics 2016, statistically significant differential effect with respect to
Adaptive Platform or approximately half gender.
PAM) of all students in
3rd through 6th
grades of primary
education had used
the platform.”
Yanguas (2020) Uruguay One laptop per child 1.6 million Regression The intervention increased access to a computer in the
program discontinuity design house by 17 percentage points. There is no evidence that
the laptop program had a positive effect on educational
attainment in either the short or longer run.
Appendix Table A5. Summary of Large-Scale Interventions that Are Gender Focused
Panel A: Sanitation and menstrual health products
Adukia (2017) India School latrine National level Difference-in-differences “School latrine construction substantially increases
construction enrollment [by 11 percent] of pubescent-age girls,
though predominately when providing sex-specific
latrines. Privacy and safety appear to matter sufficiently
for pubescent-age girls that only sex-specific latrines
reduce gender disparities.” While the study did not
measure results on completion, the enrollment results are
strong and enduring three years after construction.
Students did not perform better on direct tests of their
learning, but girls (and boys as well) both sat for and
passed their official school exams at higher rates
Baird et al. (2016) Kenya Deworming 32,565 pupils in 75 Randomized controlled Ten years after the program, results showed increased
schools implemented by trial labor supply for men (17 percent more hours per week
an NGO and more time in non-agriculture self-employment) and
education for women (one quarter more likely to have
attended secondary school, reducing the gender gap in
half). Furthermore, the study “estimate a conservative
annualized financial internal rate of return to deworming
of 32% and show that mass deworming may generate
more in future government revenue than it costs in
subsidies.”
Croke and Atun (2019) Uganda Deworming 27,995 children in 48 Randomized controlled The difference between numeracy and literacy scores in
parishes trial treatment versus control communities is 0.07 and 0.05
standard deviation, respectively. There were significant
differences in numeracy and literacy differentially
positively affected for girls.
Kazianga et al. (2013), Burkina Faso Girl-friendly schools With government, about Regression discontinuity After 2.5 years, the intervention increased girls’
Davis et al. (2016) (BRIGHT) that provide 130 villages design enrollment by 19 percentage points, five percentage
standard deviation.
Panel B: Gender-sensitization training
Dhar et al. (2022) India Awareness against Over 500,000 Randomized controlled “The program made attitudes more supportive of gender
gender-based adolescents have trial equality by 0.18 standard deviations, or, equivalently,
discrimination engaged with TKT converted 16% of regressive attitudes. . .The program
(curriculum, youth also led to more gender-equal self-reported behavior [e.g.,
club, teacher training; boys reported a higher likelihood of doing chores], and we
Taaron Ki Toli by the find weak evidence that it affected two
NGO breakthrough) revealed-preference measures.”
Miske Witt and Egypt, Honduras, India, Girls’ leadership At least 40,000 students Matching At least half of the girls receiving the intervention
Associates (2011) Malawi, Tanzania, and training (Power to Lead exhibited improved self-confidence and leadership skills.
Yemen, Rep. Alliance or PTLA)
Panel C: Mentoring and safe spaces
Bandiera et al. (2020) Uganda, Sierra Leone Vocational training and 50,000 adolescent girls Randomized controlled Four years post-intervention, adolescent girls are 4.9
providing reproductive trial percentage points more likely to engage in
health information income-generating activities than girls in control
communities. By endline, the probability of teen
pregnancy was 3.8 percentage points lower, early
marriage/cohabitating was 6.9 percentage points lower,
and the share of girls reporting sex against their will was
5.3 percentage points lower than girls in control
communities.
Buehren et al. (2017) Tanzania Vocational training, Pilot in Tanzania, but Randomized controlled No significant effect “on young women’s social and
providing reproductive the program has trial economic outcomes.” Adding microfinance improved
health information, and reached over a million program take-up by 6 percentage points and increased
microfinance girls in other countries savings among adolescent girls.
(Empowerment and
Livelihood for
Adolescents)
Appendix Table A6. Summary of Other Large-Scale Interventions
Ajayi et al. (2020) Ghana Information on At least 11,466 students Randomized controlled “The improved information did not improve education
secondary school have seen the booklet trial outcomes—students were no more likely to start school
admission strategies (Table 2) on time or enroll at all.”
(Guidance and
Information for
Improved Decisions in
Education; GUIIDE)
Aturupane et al. (2014) Sri Lanka School report card and Government program Difference-in-differences The decentralization effort significantly increased Math
decentralizing decision covering 5,222 schools (by 0.17 standard deviation) and English (by 0.22
making power standard deviation) scores for Grade 4 students but not
for language scores or any subject for Grade 8 students.
The school report card had no significant impact on any
scores for either grade.
Banerjee et al. (2010) India Providing information Sample > 17,000 Randomized controlled The interventions had no impact on learning outcome,
to encourage children in 280 villages trial and instrumental teacher effort or community involvement. However, in
participation (other variable analysis one of three interventions where there were youth
arms include training volunteers, children who attended substantially improved
volunteers for remedial their reading skills: “for example, our instrumental
camps and children’s variables estimate suggests that the average child who
testing tool) (Sarva could not read anything at baseline and attended the
Shiksha Abhiyan) camp was 60 percentage points more likely to decipher
letters after a year than a comparable child in a control
village.”
Banerjee et al. (2015) India Microfinance Implemented by a Randomized controlled The program resulted in an 8.4 percentage point increase
(Spandana) for-profit microfinance trial in microcredit take up. There was no significant change in
institution with health, education, or women’s empowerment. After two
outreach of at least 2 years, when control groups were able to access the
million borrowers microcredit, very few significant differences persisted.
Banerji et al. (2017) India Maternal literacy Sample in the study is Randomized controlled All three interventions improved mother’s learning
program (Pratham) greater than 10,000 trial outcomes by 0.096, 0.043, and 0.12 standard deviation,
implemented by an NGO respectively, and significant but modest impacts on
children’s math scores. Additionally, the interventions
increased a range of additional outcomes reflecting
greater involvement in their children’s education, such as
school attendance.
Cilliers et al. (2020) Tanzania Low-stakes Nationwide reform Difference-in-differences The intervention “increased average test scores by
accountability program approximately 20 percent of a pre-reform school
that published both standard deviation for schools in the bottom decile
nationwide and relative to schools ranked in the middle six
within-district school deciles. . .However, the program also led schools to
rankings (dashboard; strategically exclude students [both girls and boys] from
Big Results Now in the terminal year of primary school.”
Education)
Glewwe et al. (2016) China Provision of eyeglasses 29,000 students in 251 Randomized controlled Wearing eyeglasses for one year increased average test
schools trial scores for children with poor vision by 0.16 to 0.22
standard deviation (equal to 0.3 to 0.5 additional years of
schooling).
Janssens (2006) India Literacy camps and National program Instrumental variable The program “has a significant positive impact on
continuing education covering 42,000 villages immunization rates and preschool and school enrolment
for women (Mahila by 2014 rates when one of the female household members
Samakhya) participates. . . Moreover, the spillover effects on children
living in programme villages, but whose mother does not
participate herself, are substantial, especially for girls and
children belong to the Scheduled Castes.”
Kwauk and Robinson Rwanda and Uganda Mentorship and skills More than 100,000 Randomized controlled “94 percent of first graduates have a business, job, or
(2016a) development (Educate!) students per year in 380 trial attend a university; there is a 64 percent increase in the
secondary schools number of students who have a business at the end of the
program, compared with a control, and a 123 percent
increase in students with a community project.”
Kwauk et al. (2016b) India + 115 countries Entrepreneurial, social 3.9 million students per Randomized controlled “In an Aflatoun-commissioned external meta-analysis of
and financial education year trial 21 randomized control trials of interventions containing
implemented by a financial education component targeting children and
Aflatoun International youth, Aflatoun’s effect on financial behavior was more
than double the overall effect across interventions—twice
the overall effect of all the interventions studied.”
Reinikka and Svensson Uganda Information campaign National program: “the Instrumental variable “The reduction in corruption is associated with a
(2011) to make schools aware government began to analysis statistically significant increase in enrollment. A
of government grants publish the data in the one-standard deviation increases in the share of funding
available to them national newspapers, on reaching the school is associated with a 0.48 standard
a regular basis, on the deviation increase in grade 7 enrollment.” Students in
monthly transfers of the schools closer to a newspaper outlet in the post-campaign
capitation grants to period had higher scores, with the effect slightly larger for
districts” girls.
References for This Appendix
Adukia, A. 2017. “Sanitation and Education.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9 (2): 23–
59. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150083.
Afridi, F. 2011. “The Impact of School Meals on School Participation: Evidence from Rural India.” Jour-
nal of Development Studies 47 (11): 1636–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2010.514330.
Ajayi, K. F., W. H. Friedman, and A. M. Lucas. 2020. “When Information Is Not Enough: Evidence from a
Centralized School Choice System.” NBER Working Paper No. 27887, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27887.
Akresh, R., D. Halim, and M. Kleemans. 2023. “Long-Term and Intergenerational Effects of Educa-
tion: Evidence from School Construction in Indonesia.” The Economic Journal 133 (650): 582–612.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac058.
Alam, A., J. E. Baez, and X. V. Del Carpio. 2011. Does Cash for School Influence Young Women’s Behavior
in the Longer Term? Evidence from Pakistan. Policy Research Working Paper 5669, World Bank, Wash-
ington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5669.
Alexander, J., C. Kwauk, and J. Perlman-Robinson. 2016. “Room To Read: Scaling up Literacy
through Localized Solutions across Asia and Africa.” Center for Universal Education at Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-Room-to-Read-Case-Study.pdf .
Alfonso, M., A. Santiago, and M. Bassi. 2010. Estimating the impact of placing top university graduates in
vulnerable schools in Chile. Unpublished manuscript, Inter-American Development Bank.
Amarante, V., M. Ferrando, and A. Vigorito. 2013. “Teenage School Attendance and Cash Transfers: An
Impact Evaluation of PANES.” Economía 14 (1): 61–96.
Andrabi, T., J. Das, and A. I. Khwaja. 2017. “Report Cards: The Impact of Providing School
and Child Test Scores on Educational Markets.” American Economic Review 107 (6): 1535–63.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140774.
Angrist, J., E. Bettinger, and M. Kremer. 2006. “Long-Term Educational Consequences of Secondary
School Vouchers: Evidence from Administrative Records in Colombia.” American Economic Review 96
(3): 847–62. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.3.847.
Araujo, M. C., and K. Macours. 2021. “Education, Income and Mobility: Experimental Im-
pacts of Childhood Exposure to Progresa after 20 Years.” Working Paper, Inter-American De-
velopment Bank. https://publications.iadb.org/en/education-income-and-mobility-experimental-
impacts-childhood-exposure-progresa-after-20-years.
Aturupane, H., P. Glewwe, R. Ravina, U. Sonnadara, and S. Wisniewski. 2014. “An Assessment of
the Impacts of Sri Lanka’s Programme for School Improvement and School Report Card Pro-
gramme on Students’ Academic Progress.” Journal of Development Studies 50 (12): 1647–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.936396.
Aurino, E., A. Gelli, C. Adamba, I. Osei-Akoto, and H. Alderman. 2020. “Food for Thought? Experimen-
tal Evidence on the Learning Impacts of a Large-Scale School Feeding Program.” Journal of Human
Resources, 1019. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.3.1019-10515R1.
Baez, J. E., and A. Camacho. 2011. “Assessing the Long-Term Effects of Conditional Cash
Transfers on Human Capital: Evidence from Colombia.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5681.
Baird, S., J. H. Hicks, M. Kremer, and E. Miguel. 2016. “Worms at Work: Long-Run Impacts of a Child
Health Investment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 131 (4): 1637–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/
qje/qjw022.
Bandiera, O., N. Buehren, R. Burgess, M. Goldstein, S. Gulesci, I. Rasul, and M. Sulaiman. 2020.
“Women’s Empowerment in Action: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Africa.” American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12 (1): 210–59. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170416.
Banerjee, A., E. Duflo, R. Glennerster, and C. Kinnan. 2015. “The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence
from a Randomized Evaluation.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 7 (1): 22–53.
Banerjee, A. V., R. Banerji, E. Duflo, R. Glennerster, and S. Khemani. 2010. “Pitfalls of Participatory Pro-
grams: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Education in India.” American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy 2 (1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.2.1.1.
Banerjee, A. V., S. Cole, E. Duflo, and L. Linden. 2007. “Remedying Education: Evidence from
Two Randomized Experiments in India.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (3): 1235–64.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235.
Banerji, R., J. Berry, and M. Shotland. 2017. “The Impact of Maternal Literacy and Participation Pro-
grams: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in India.” American Economic Journal: Applied Eco-
nomics 9 (4): 303–37. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150390.
Barr, A., L. Bategeka, M. Guloba, I. Kasirye, F. Mugisha, P. Serneels, and A. Zeitlin. 2012. “Management
and Motivation in Ugandan Primary Schools: An Impact Evaluation Report.” Working Papers PIERI,
2012–14, PEP-PIERI. https ://ideas.repec.org/p/lvl/piercr/2012-14.html.
Behrman, J. R., P. Sengupta, and P. Todd. 2005. “Progressing through PROGRESA: An Impact Assess-
ment of a School Subsidy Experiment in Rural Mexico.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 54
(1): 237–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/431263.
Benhassine, N., F. Devoto, E. Duflo, P. Dupas, and V. Pouliquen. 2015. “Turning a Shove into a Nudge?
A ‘Labeled Cash Transfer’ for Education.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7 (3): 86–125.
https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130225.
Blimpo, M. P., O. Gajigo, and T. Pugatch. 2019. “Financial Constraints and Girls’ Secondary Education:
Evidence from School Fee Elimination in the Gambia.” World Bank Economic Review 33 (1): 185–208.
https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhw051.
Buehren, N., M. P. Goldstein, S. Gulesci, M. Sulaiman, and V. Yam. 2017. “Evaluation of
an Adolescent Development Program for Girls in Tanzania.” Policy Research Working
Paper, No. WPS7961, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/en/245071486474542369/Evaluation-of-an-adolescent-development-program-for-
girls-in-Tanzania.
Chakraborty, T., and R. Jayaraman. 2019. “School Feeding and Learning Achievement: Evidence
from India’s Midday Meal Program.” Journal of Development Economics 139 (June): 249–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.10.011.
Chelwa, G., M. Pellicer, and M. Maboshe. 2019. “Teacher Pay and Educational Outcomes: Evidence
from the Rural Hardship Allowance in Zambia.” South African Journal of Economics 87 (3): 255–82.
https://doi.org/10.1111/saje.12227.
Cilliers, J., I. M. Mbiti, and A. Zeitlin. 2020. “Can Public Rankings Improve School Performance? Evi-
dence from a Nationwide Reform in Tanzania.” Journal of Human Resources, March, 0119–9969R1.
https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.56.3.0119-9969R1.
Cristia, J., A. Czerwonko, and P. Garofalo. 2014. “Does Technology in Schools Affect Repetition,
Dropout and Enrollment? Evidence from Peru.” Journal of Applied Economics 17 (1): 89–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(14)60004-0.
Cristia, J., P. Ibarrarán, S. Cueto, A. Santiago, and E. Severín. 2017. “Technology and Child Development:
Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9
(3): 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150385.
Croke, K., and R. Atun. 2019. “The Long Run Impact of Early Childhood Deworming on Numer-
acy and Literacy: Evidence from Uganda.” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13 (1): e0007085.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007085.
Davis, M., N. Ingwersen, H. Kazianga, L. Linden, A. Mamun, A. Protik, and M. Sloan. 2016.
“Ten-Year Impacts of Burkina Faso’s BRIGHT Program.” Mathematica Policy Research.
https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/ten-year-impacts-
of-burkina-fasos-bright-program.
Deininger, K. 2003. “Does Cost of Schooling Affect Enrollment by the Poor? Universal Primary Educa-
tion in Uganda.” Economics of Education Review 22 (3): 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
7757(02)00053-5.
Dhar, D., T. Jain, and S. Jayachandran. 2022. “Reshaping Adolescents’ Gender Attitudes: Evi-
dence from a School-Based Experiment in India.” American Economic Review 112 (3): 899–927.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201112.
Di Gropello, E., and J. H. Marshall. 2011. “Decentralization and Educational Performance: Evidence from
the PROHECO Community School Program in Rural Honduras.” Education Economics 19 (2): 161–
80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290902992816.
Duflo, A., J. Kiessel, and A. M. Lucas. 2020. “External Validity: Four Models of Improving Student
Achievement.” NBER Working Paper No. 27298, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cam-
bridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27298.
Duflo, E., P. Dupas, and M. Kremer. 2015. “Education, HIV, and Early Fertility: Experimental
Evidence from Kenya.” American Economic Review 105 (9): 2757–97. https://doi.org/10.1257/
aer.20121607.
———. 2021. “The Impact of Free Secondary Education: Experimental Evidence from Ghana.”
NBER Working Paper No. 28973, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w28937.
Edmonds, E., B. Feigenberg, and J. Leight. 2019. “Advancing the Agency of Adolescent Girls:
Final Evaluation Report for Room To Read.” Room to Read, San Francisco, CA, USA.
https://www.roomtoread.org/media/gkni2y0u/gep-evaluation-2016-18-rajasthan-final-
report.pdf .
Erten, B., and P. Keskin. 2020. “Breaking the Cycle? Education and the Intergenerational Transmission
of Violence.” Review of Economics and Statistics 102 (2): 252–68.
Evans, D. K., and F. Yuan 2022. “What We Learn about Girls’ Education from Interventions That
Do Not Focus on Girls.” World Bank Economic Review 36 (1): 244–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/
wber/lhab007.
Eyal, K., and I. Woolard. 2018. “More Than Just a Black-Board: Cash Transfers and Adolescent Edu-
cation in South Africa.” SALDRU Working Paper Number 125, Version 2/ NIDS Discussion Paper
2013/7. Cape Town: SALDRU, UCT.
Fraudenberger, E., and J. Davis. 2017. “Tusome External Evaluation Midline Report.”
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MS6J.pdf .
Gazeaud, J., and C. Ricard. 2021. “Conditional Cash Transfers and the Learning Crisis: Evidence from
Tayssir Scale-up in Morocco.” https://ideas.repec.org/p/unl/novafr/wp2102.html.
Gelli, A., U. Meir, and F. Espejo. 2007. “Does Provision of Food in School Increase Girls’ Enroll-
ment? Evidence from Schools in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin 28 (2): 149–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650702800203.
Glewwe, P., A. Park, and M. Zhao. 2016. “A Better Vision for Development: Eyeglasses and Academic
Performance in Rural Primary Schools in China.” Journal of Development Economics 122 (September):
170–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.05.007.
Hahn, Y., A. Islam, K. Nuzhat, R. Smyth, and H.-S. Yang. 2018. “Education, Marriage, and Fertility:
Long-Term Evidence from a Female Stipend Program in Bangladesh.” Economic Development and Cul-
tural Change 66 (2): 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1086/694930.
He, F., L. L. Linden, and M. Macleod. 2008. “How To Teach English in India: Testing the Relative Pro-
ductivity of Instruction Methods within the Pratham English Language Education Program 1.”
https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/RQYG6BYY.
Jaffe, S., Z. Lowe, and F. Mahesri. 2014. “Ghana iREAD Study 2012-2014 Final Evaluation.” Worl-
dreader. https://comms.worldreader.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/iREAD-final_web2.pdf .
Jain, M. 2018. “A Vaccination for Education: Early Childhood Development Programme and
the Education of Older Girls in Rural India.” Journal of Development Studies 54 (1): 153–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2017.1288218.
Janssens, W. 2006. “Measuring Externalities in Program Evaluation.” Tinbergen Institute Discussion
Papers No. 05-017/2. Tinbergen Institute. https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20050017.html.
Joddar, P. 2018. “Impact Evaluation of the Literacy Program- Partnership Approach un-
der Scaling up Early Reading Intervention(SERI) Funded by USAID: 2018 Endline Evalu-
ation Report for Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.” Room to Read, San Francisco, CA, USA.
https://www.roomtoread.org/media/p3nhkbhi/2018-india-litearcy-impact-eval-of-hindi-schools-
under-seri-partnership-approach-endline-report.pdf .
Kazianga, H., D. Levy, L. L. Linden, and M. Sloan. 2013. “The Effects of ‘Girl-Friendly’ Schools: Evidence
from the BRIGHT School Construction Program in Burkina Faso.” American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 5 (3): 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.3.41.
Kelly, D., J. Davis, I. R. Morales, S. Kelly, S. Fuller, and E. Freudenberger. 2018.
“2017 Early Grade Reading Assessment: Sindh-Pakistan Reading Program.” USAID.
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TNK1.pdf .
Kwauk, C., and J. P. Robinson. 2016a. “Educate! Riding the Reform Wave To Scale up Youth
Entrepreneurship in Uganda.” The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-Educate-Case-Study.pdf .
———. 2016b. “Sistema de Aprendizaje Tutorial: Redefining Rural Secondary Education in Latin Amer-
ica.” The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-
SAT-Case-Study.pdf .
Kwauk, C., J. P. Robinson, and S. Spilka. 2016a. “Teach for All: Building a Pipeline of Future Ed-
ucation Leaders around the World.” The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/final-teach-for-all-case-study.pdf .
Kwauk, C., D. Petvaro, and J. P. Robinson. 2016b. “Aflatoun International: Scaling Social and Financial
Education through a Global Franchise.” The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-Aflatoun-Case-Study.pdf .
Linden, L., and F. Barrera-Osorio. 2009. “The Use and Misuse of Computers in Education:
Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Colombia.” Policy Research Working Paper
No. 4836, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/
handle/10986/4032/WPS4836.pdf?sequence=1.
Loyalka, P., A. Popova, G. Li, and Z. Shi. 2019. “Does Teacher Training Actually Work? Evidence from
a Large-Scale Randomized Evaluation of a National Teacher Training Program.” American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics 11 (3): 128–54. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170226.
Lucas, A. M., and I. M. Mbiti. 2012. “Does Free Primary Education Narrow Gender Differ-
ences in Schooling? Evidence from Kenya.” Journal of African Economies 21 (5): 691–722.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejs021.
Maluccio, J. A., A. Murphy, and F. Regalia. 2010. “Does Supply Matter? Initial Schooling Conditions
and the Effectiveness of Conditional Cash Transfers for Grade Progression in Nicaragua.” Journal of
Development Effectiveness 2 (1): 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439340903584085.
Mares, M.-L., and Z. Pan. 2013. “Effects of Sesame Street: A Meta-Analysis of Children’s
Learning in 15 Countries.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (3): 140–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.01.001.
Mbiti, I., K. Muralidharan, M. Romero, Y. Schipper, C. Manda, and R. Rajani. 2019. “Inputs, Incentives,
and Complementarities in Education: Experimental Evidence from Tanzania.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 134 (3): 1627–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz010.
Mensah, J. T., and A. Nsabimana. 2020. “Food for Thought: School Feeding and Cognitive
Performance in Rwanda.” Working Paper. https://www.dropbox.com/s/n2ihgx4ofml0kkq/
Mensah%20and%20Nsabimana%202020_JDEsubmitted.pdf?dl=0.
Miske Witt & Associates Inc. 2011. “The Power To Lead Alliance (PTLA) Empowering Girls
To Learn and Lead: Final Evaluation Report for CARE USA.” http://careevaluations.org/wp-
content/uploads/PTLA-FINAL-EVALUATION-REPORT_MWAI.pdf .
Muralidharan, K., and N. Prakash. 2017. “Cycling to School: Increasing Secondary School En-
rollment for Girls in India.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9 (3): 321–50.
https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160004.
Muralidharan, K., A. Singh, and A. J. Ganimian. 2019. “Disrupting Education? Experimental Evi-
dence on Technology-Aided Instruction in India.” American Economic Review 109 (4): 1426–60.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20171112.
Muralidharan, K., and V. Sundararaman. 2011. “Teacher Performance Pay: Experimental Evidence from
India.” Journal of Political Economy 119 (1): 39–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/659655.
Nanda, P., N. Datta, S. Lamba, and E. Pradhan. 2016. “Impact of a Conditional Cash Trans-
fer Program on Girls’ Education and Age of Marriage in India Synthesis of Findings.”
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Impact-of-a-Conditional-Cash-Transfer-Program-on-
of-Nanda-Datta/ec4c4f1a06d1b4fce1e4b6dd3cb77f1e347fe57d.
Pandey, P., S. Goyal, and V. Sundararaman. 2008. “Community Participation in Public Schools:
The Impact of Information Campaigns in Three Indian States.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
Pappas, G., A. Agha, G. Rafique, K. S. Khan, S. Badruddin, and H. Peermohamed. 2008. “Community-
Based Approaches to Combating Malnutrition and Poor Education among Girls in Resource-Poor Set-
tings: Report of a Large Scale Intervention in Pakistan.” Rural and Remote Health 8 (1): 820.
Perera, M., and D. Aboal. 2019. “The Impact of a Mathematics Computer-Assisted Learning Platform
on Students’ Mathematics Test Scores.” MERIT Working Papers 2019-007, United Nations Univer-
sity – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/unumer/2019007.html
Piper, B., J. Destefano, E. M. Kinyanjui, and S. Ong’ele. 2018. “Scaling up Successfully: Lessons
from Kenya’s Tusome National Literacy Program.” Journal of Educational Change 19 (3): 293–321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9325-4.
Piper, B., S. King, and A. Mugenda. 2016. “Primary Math and Reading (PRIMR) Initiative: Endline
Impact Evaluation—Revised Edition.” https://developmentevidence.3ieimpact.org/search-result-
details/impact-evaluation-repository/primary-math-and-reading-primr-initiative-endline-impact-
evaluationrevised-edition/6307.
Psaki, S., N. Haberland, B. Mensch, L. Woyczynski, and E. Chuang. 2022. “Policies and Interventions
To Remove Gender-Related Barriers to Girls’ School Participation and Learning in Low- and Middle-
Income Countries: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 18 (1): e1207.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1207.
Pugatch, T., and E. Schroeder. 2018. “Teacher Pay and Student Performance: Evidence from
the Gambian Hardship Allowance.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 10 (2): 249–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2018.1452778.
Rajesh Raj, S. N., K. Sen, V. B. Annigeri, A. K. Kulkarni, and D. R. Revankar. 2015. “Joyful Learning?
The Effects of a School Intervention on Learning Outcomes in Karnataka.” International Journal of
Educational Development 40 (January): 183–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.09.003.
Randall, J., and A. Garcia. 2020. “Let’s Go Girls!: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Tutoring and Scholar-
ships on Primary School Girls’ Attendance and Academic Performance in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo.” FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education 6 (3): 19–35.
Reinikka, R., and J. Svensson. 2011. “The Power of Information in Public Services: Evidence from
Education in Uganda.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (7): 956–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpubeco.2011.02.006.
Ruddle, N., and G. Rawle. 2020. “EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation: Final Endline Report.” Oxford
Policy Management: Oxford, UK. https://www.opml.co.uk/files/Publications/8383-assessing-equip-
t/1589895669_opm-ie-final-endline-report-final.pdf?noredirect=1.
Sabates, R., P. Rose, B. Alcott, and M. Delprato. 2020. “Assessing Cost-Effectiveness with Equity of
a Programme Targeting Marginalised Girls in Secondary Schools in Tanzania.” https://doi.org/
10.1080/19439342.2020.1844782.
Sperling, G., R. Winthrop, and C. Kwauk. 2016. What Works in Girls’ Education: Evidence for the World’s
Best Investment. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt17w8hh8.
Tehelka, T. V., dir. 2013. “Sparking a Change: Mindspark.” YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=mcGbugUR5Ko.
Tembon, M., and L. Fort. 2008. “Girls’ Education in the 21st Century: Gender Equality, Empower-
ment, and Economic Growth.” Directions in Development: Human Development. World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6554/454040PUB097801E0O
NLY10Aug012102008.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
UNICEF Nigeria. 2017. “Impact Evaluation of UNICEF Nigeria Girls’ Education Project Phase 3
(GEP3) Cash Transfer Programme.” https://www.unicef.org/nigeria/reports/impact-evaluation-
unicef-nigeria-girls-education-project-phase-3-gep3-cash-transfer-0.
Unterhalter, E., A. North, M. Arnot, C. Lloyd, L. Moletsane, E. Murphy-Graham, J. Parkes, and
M. Saito. 2014. “Interventions To Enhance Girls’ Education and Gender Equality.” Education
Rigorous Literature Review. Department for International Development. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/
cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/Girls’%20education%202014%20
Unterhalter%20report.pdf?ver=2015-12-08-165815-117.
Yanguas, M. L. 2020. “Technology and Educational Choices: Evidence from a One-Laptop-per-
Child Program.” Economics of Education Review 76 (June): 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.econedurev.2020.101984.

World Bank 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Bank 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Bank 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized

Girls’ Education at Scale

48 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Inequality in educational attainment is a massive global challenge, but the nature

50 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Source: Authors’ construction

The Knowledge Challenge

The Methods Used for This Review

52 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Fee Elimination and Scholarships (Supplementary online appendix table A2

54 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Feed Children at School (Supplementary online appendix table A2 panel B)

Cash Transfers (Supplementary online appendix table A2 panel C)

Two classes of interventions to make schools more accessible—constructing schools

General Improvements in the Quality of Instruction (Supplementary online

What about Other Teacher Policies? (Supplementary online appendix table A4

Deploy Effective Forms of Education Technology to Improve Instruction (Supple-

Sanitation and Menstrual Health Products (Supplementary online appendix table

58 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Gender-Sensitization Training (Supplementary online appendix table A5 panel B)

Considerations for Selecting Interventions to Implement and Scale

60 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Identifying Potential Solutions

Calculating Program Costs

62 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

64 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Conflict of Interest. The authors declare no competing interests.

66 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

68 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

70 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

72 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

74 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)

Areas with More Limited, Mixed Evidence

School accountability, often involving publicizing either resources flowing to schools

You might also like