The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-333X.htm
IJSSP
33,11/12
708
Received 5 December 2012
Revised 25 March 2013
Accepted 3 April 2013
International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy
Vol. 33 No. 11/12, 2013
pp. 708-724
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-333X
DOI 10.1108/IJSSP-12-2012-0105
Government versus private
primary schools in India
An assessment of physical infrastructure,
schooling costs and performance
Jitendra Gouda and Kailash Chandra Das
International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India
Srinivas Goli
Giri Institute of Development Studies, Lucknow, India, and
Ladumai Maikho Apollo Pou
International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India
Abstract
Purpose – This paper is an effort to identify the difference between government and private primary
schools in terms of physical infrastructure, schooling costs and student’s performance. Further, the
paper assessed the role of physical infrastructure and schooling costs on the performance of students.
The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – This study used India Human Development Survey (IHDS) data.
Bivariate, trivariate, x 2 and ANOVA test, factor analyses and Theil index are used as methods of
analyses.
Findings – The results present a distinct picture of government and private primary school
education in India in terms of physical infrastructure standards, schooling cost and performance of
students. In all the three selected indicators, private primary schools remained a forerunner or
outperform the government primary schools in India. Besides this, the physical infrastructure and
schooling cost found to have effect on performance of students both in private and public schools.
Practical implications – Since government primary schools hold more than 70 percent of total
students, there is an urgent need to improve the standards of primary education in these schools.
Further, efforts are needed to reduce the gaps between private and public schools in terms of its basic
physical facilities and performance of students in the country.
Originality/value – The paper used the IHDS to examine the existing differentials between
government and private primary schools. The analysis is purely an original work.
Keywords India, Performance management, Social care, Social exclusion, Children (age groups)
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In the twentieth century, it has come to be universally accepted that education is one of
the core functions of moving towards an egalitarian society. This development has
resulted in a massive expansion of the education sector mostly provided by the
government (Meyer et al., 1977). India too has also shown considerable commitment to
educate its people, particularly the children. India’s GDP contribution of education has
increased from the mere 0.67 percent in 1951 to 3.54 percent in 2004 (Tilak, 2004).
Meanwhile, the country has witnessed a dramatic increase in the literacy rate from the
meager 18.33 percent in 1951 to 74.04 percent in 2011 (Office of the Register General of
India, 2011). Along with this transformation in education as an institution and its Government
structure, the quality of education in the country also has undergone tremendous versus private
change. Further, many professional courses like medical, information technology (IT)
and engineering offer people the ability to have better career option. primary schools
However, the educational attainments in India even after nearly seven decades of
independence foster an unequal progress among diverse groups of society. The
socioeconomic, regional disparities and the sex differential in literacy are still major 709
concerns for the country (Office of Registrar General of India, 2011). India is also
witnessing wide variation in the quality of education delivered to its citizens. Many of
such problems have roots in primary education and more particularly in government
education system. At primary level, there is a large concern that the government
schools do not deliver quality education to children (PROBE, 1999; Pratham, 2005;
Tooley and Dixon, 2005; Muralidharan, 2006; Desai et al., 2010). Many reasons have
been put forward for the poor quality of education in government primary schools.
Earlier studies considered poor quality of resources as the prime reason. The recent
studies highlight the pervasiveness of teacher absence and inactivity in government
schools which certainly deteriorate the quality of education (Narayan and Mooij, 2010).
Furthermore, the overcrowded classrooms, poor infrastructure, i.e. lack of ICT or
teachers learning materials (TLMs), unfilled vacancies, burden of non-academic tasks
and lack of adequate training to deal with multi-lingual and multi-ability classes
deteriorate the quality of education in government primary schools (Narayan and
Mooij, 2010). Thus, the popular trend that is gaining ground can be found in growing
dissatisfaction over the government funded education; the country has entered into a
transitional phase wherein private players are taking interest in imparting education at
various levels (Singh, 1999; Muralidharan, 2006). Therefore, in the present day, like any
other sector, education sector witness a splendid mix of government and private
institutions venturing into this sector in India (Muralidharan, 2006; Desai et al., 2010).
Moreover, the number of private schools offering primary education is increasing at a
rapid rate in India. Poor quality of education in government schools is considered as a
major reason for this rapid growth of private schools (PROBE, 2009).
The analysis of the educational system in India and of government-private primary
schools in particular are often infeasible and hampered greatly due to the
unavailability of data (Mehta, 2005). It is obvious that the paucity of data on
education complicated the work of researchers and education analyst in many ways.
Furthermore, the causal factors along with the magnitude of the disparity between
government and private provided primary education across place of residence and
economic groups is not or partly understood at various levels in India. In a nutshell,
there is a quest for understanding the primary education in terms of how the
government and private school are performing with varying infrastructure and cost.
Hence, any insightful assessment of these questions will definitely have implications
for better policy formulation towards primary school education in the country.
The proposed study attempts to investigate the infrastructure, schooling cost and
academic performance of students from government and private primary schools. The
basic purpose of this study is to draw evidences related to the structural differences in
school set ups, cost and its effect on outcomes which will have implications for better
policy formulation. Based on this perspective, three objectives are formulated for this
study. The first objective is to assess the differentials in the physical infrastructure of
IJSSP government and private primary schools. Second, to examine the differentials in
33,11/12 schooling cost of government and private primary schools and third, to assess the
effect of schooling cost and infrastructure on the performance of students from
government and private primary schools in rural and urban.

2. Methodology
710 2.1 Data source
This study used India Human Development Survey (IHDS, 2005) data for the
assessment of Physical infrastructure, Schooling cost and performance of students in
government and private schools at India level. The IHDS is a collaborative project of
researchers from the University of Maryland and National Council of Applied
Economic Research (NCAER), New Delhi. It is a household survey whose primary goal
is to deepen the understanding of human development issues in India. The IHDS was
administered to a nationally representative sample of 41,554 households located across
all states and union territories of India with the exception of Andaman Nicobar and
Lakshadweep and contains urban as well as rural sample.

2.2 Sampling design

IHDS, as per its laid objectives, administered the household questionnaires to the
head/any individual member in the family assuming he/she is the most knowledgeable
person to answer the requisite questions. The individual questionnaires are the
important tools for deriving findings for understanding of individual level’s issues.
In addition to this household and individual module, the survey also included a
primary school module wherein interviewers are asked to conduct a schools facilities
survey for one government and one private primary school in each village and urban
block. When more than one facility was available in each block/village, interviewers
are asked to select the facility that was predominantly used by the residents. A total of
36,725 schools incorporating both government and private primary schools from rural
and urban area surveyed in India. Apart from this, a major innovation of this survey is
the short assessment of reading, writing and arithmetic skills for children aged eight to
11 years. The survey used the tool developed by Pratham. Interviewers are trained
extensively by Pratham volunteers using specially developed films so that they could
differentiate between a child’s shyness and inability to perform in any test. A total of
17,117 students from government and private primary schools participated in the
performance test which is the sample representative of the survey (Desai et al., 2010).

2.3 Variables
The variables used for this study are categorized into dependent and predictor
variables.
2.3.1 Dependent variable
School physical infrastructure. The IHDS collected infrastructure information on
27 distinct items, i.e. availability of chairs and desks, mats, blackboard in all
classrooms, library, computer for students, fan, play ground, kitchen for cooked meals,
cook, cook assistant, toilet facility, separate toilet for boys and girls, location of toilet
for boys and girls, type of toilet for boys and girls, source of drinking water, location of
drinking water, class meeting outside the classroom due to lack of infrastructure,
duration in the availability of electricity, frequency in electricity failing, mixed grade
classroom, girls scouts/boys guides, provision of home science, sports, extra-curricular Government
activities and any other activities specifying its distinguishing characteristics. In most versus private
cases, the IHDS collected information on more than two distinguishing characteristics
of infrastructure items. This study uses “infrastructure index” constructed by principal primary schools
component analysis (PCA). The index uses dichotomous infrastructure variables with
only two distinguishing characteristics wherein the most desirable figuring the top in
the hierarchy (of categories) is assigned as one ascribed for “fulfilling the standard” and 711
the other rest categories as zero ascribed for “below standard”. Therefore, two major
categories namely “below standards” and “fulfills the standards” are created to define
the index. The variable characteristics are assigned a weight (factor score) generated
through PCA, and the resulting items’ scores are then standardized in relation to the
normal distribution with the mean of zero and standards deviation of one.
In line with the underlying criterion for defining the “standard infrastructure”,
DFID (2004) supposedly laid down likely components for defining the standard.
“Standards infrastructure” can be the one, which is accessible, durable, functional, safe
and hygienic and easily maintained therefore, needs to be part of any strategy to meet
the Millennium Development Goal for primary education. All of the facilities required
for effective teaching and learning such as classrooms, outdoor learning and play
areas, furniture, water and sanitation, administration buildings, storage, cooking and
boarding facilities can be termed as “standards infrastructure” (DFID, 2004).
Schooling cost. The IHDS has collected information on the cost like the registration,
tuition and other payments borne by students separately for general and scheduled
caste (SC)/scheduled tribe (ST) category students. This study uses a total cost borne by
students after merging all three costs, i.e. registration, tuition and other payments
separately for general and SC/ST category students.
Performance of students. The IHDS assessed the performance of students on three
tests, i.e. reading, writing and mathematics. Information on each test is collected for
different aptitudes specifying the ability of a child. In terms of reading test, based on
their reading ability children are classified in four criteria, i.e. cannot read, can read
letters, word, paragraph and story. Likewise, for the writing test children are classified
in two criteria, i.e. cannot write and can write with two or less mistakes included to test
the aptitude of students. And, in the case of mathematics test, information is collected
in four criteria: cannot do any mathematics, can do number, subtraction and division.
2.3.2 Predictor variables
School variable. The IHDS collected information for six different categories of
schools, i.e. Government (government), private aided and recognized, private
recognized but not aided, private unrecognized, convent and others. In this study,
school is classified into five categories wherein convent and others has been merged
together while keeping all others same:
The Indian educational panorama consists of a variety of schools. While schools run by
central, state or local governments comprise a clear “government” sector, the private sector
consists of three types of schools: first, schools that receive government grant-in-aid but are
privately run second, schools that receive little government funding but are recognized third,
schools that are unrecognized and might not meet the criteria needed for recognition
(Desai et al., 2010).
Place of residence. The IHDS incorporated the sample from both rural and urban area.
Therefore, the school information is also collected from rural as well as urban area.
IJSSP The school differential in terms of infrastructure, schooling cost and performance
33,11/12 has been analysed for rural and urbanin this study.
Wealth index. An index of economic status (wealth index) for each household is
constructed using PCA based on households’ data. The wealth index is based on
30 assets and housing characteristics. Each of the household assets is assigned a
weight (factor score) generated through PCA. The resulting assets scores are then
712 standardized in relation to a normal distribution with the mean of zero and standard
deviation of one. Then, the values are divided into five categories (index), i.e. poorest,
second, middle, fourth and affluent. This study uses three categories indicating the
wealth index of household. The first and second are merged as “poor”, third as
“middle”, and fourth and fifth category as “rich” for this analysis.
Caste. The caste system in India is a social institution where social stratification
of communities is defined by several endogamous inherited groups called Jatis.
The castes in modern India can be classified into four classes: scheduled castes
(SCs)/scheduled tribes (STs), other backward castes (OBCs) and other castes. There are
a number of studies provides evidence for caste based inequalities and fosters that
SCs/STs are socioeconomically backward compared to other castes (Srinivasan, 1957).
This study analyze the difference in schooling cost borne by students belonging to
SCs/STs and general category.

2.4 Statistical analysis

Bivariate and trivariate analyses are used to estimate the differentials in physical
infrastructure, cost and the student’s performance in government and private schools.
The analysis is also carried out for selected background characteristics such as the
place of residence and wealth index. To check the statistical significance in each of the
analysis, Pearson’s x 2 and ANOVA test is used in this study. Theil index, a composite
measure to check the inequality between private and government primary schools in
terms of their performance by place of residence is used to reinforce the inferences on
inter-school differentials.
The computation procedure for the Theil index is:
X2 X
2
T¼ P i Ri log Ri þ P i Ri T i
i¼1 i¼1
where:
1X
Ti ; r j log r j
ni j[Si

where i indicate the different groups (here-government and private) for which
inequality we intend to measure, Pi indicates the proportions of students in a particular
group (here-government and private) in the total students (government and private
combined). Ri indicates the students with character (i.e. mathematics, writing and
reading test) whose inequality needs to be measured to the total students considered,
includes both government and private schools.
In the second part the rj which is proportions of students of say group i
(e.g. government) with character (e.g. mathematics). Further, ni is the proportion of
group i (e.g. government) in the total students. After calculating Ti which will be
unique for each group i take the product with Pi and Ri and then sum to get T.
However, the present study do not consider the within, and total inequalities (T) since, Government
it is more inclined to draw evidences differentiating government and private primary
schools on different dimensions rather within and total school inequalities.
versus private
primary schools
3. Results
Figure 1 shows the composition of primary schools of India in 2005. Out of the total
schools (36,725) as a sample representative taken for the survey, majority of (72 percent) 713
of schools is government run schools whereas 5 percent of schools are government
aided and recognized but privately run and 13 percent are private recognized but not
aided schools. However, only 1 percent of schools are run by other bodies like convent
and madarasa.

School infrastructure standards

The infrastructure standards for different primary school types by place of residence
are presented in Table I. At all India level, comparing government and private primary
schools the results reveal that more than half (58 percent) of private recognized but not
aided schools fulfilling the infrastructure standards. However, the schools fulfilling
standards are only 8 percent among government sector. Likewise, half of the private
unrecognized schools reported to meet the infrastructure standards. In other
categories, the schools run by the convent and madarasa, which shows 58 percent
reported to have fulfilled the infrastructure standards. Comparing government
and private schools in rural areas, it is evident that 20 percent of private aided
and recognized and only 7 percent of government runs primary schools meet the
infrastructure standards. Similar pattern also followed in urban areas, where 40 percent
of private aided and recognized meet the requisite infrastructure standards in
comparison with only 13 percent of government runs primary schools. Disparity
in infrastructure standards among private and government schools are tested for
statistical significance using the x 2-test. The results are statistically significant at
p , 0.001 and with considerable high values of x 2.

1%
9%
13%

5%

72%

Government Private aided and recognised

Private recognised, not aided Private unrecognised Figure 1.
Others Composition of primary
schools in India, 2005
Note: n = 36,725
IJSSP
Infrastructure
33,11/12 Place School type Below standards Fulfills standards x 2-test p-values

Rural Government 92.8 7.2 407.952 p , 0.000

Private aided and recognized 80.4 19.6
Private recognized but not aided 54.6 45.4
714 Private unrecognized 53.9 46.1
Others 86.5 13.5
Urban Government 87.2 12.8 185.632 p , 0.000
Private aided and recognized 60.3 39.7
Private recognized but not aided 26.3 73.7
Private unrecognized 30.9 69.1
Others 100.0
Table I. Total Government 92.1 7.9 703.238 p , 0.000
Infrastructure standard Private aided and recognized 69.6 30.4
for different primary Private recognized but not aided 42.1 57.9
schools by place of Private unrecognized 49.7 50.3
residence in India, 2005 Others 42.0 58.0

Cost of schooling
Schooling cost is an important factor which influences parents while making a decision
in the selection of school for their child’s primary education. The cost incurred in
education can be either from school management (trust) or government, or from
student side. The present study analyses the cost borne by students being enrolled in
different primary schools. This is to understand the existing difference in cost borne by
students enrolled in government and private primary schools by key background
characteristics in India. The cost borne by students incorporates the registration,
tuition and other payments in the survey.
In India, financial assistance in education for disadvantageous socioeconomic groups
like SC/ST also creates differentials in cost borne by the general and SC/ST students
across the private and government primary schools. Therefore, this study assessed cost
differentials among private and government for general and SC/ST caste student
separately. Results presented in Table II reveal that, among general caste students, the
mean schooling cost for private aided and recognized school is higher (853 INR) than the
cost of government run primary schools (15 INR). Likewise, the cost for private
recognized but not aided (853 INR) and private unrecognized schools (582 INR) remain
higher compared to the cost for governments run primary schools. Similarly, both in
rural and urban areas, the private aided and recognized schools (1,400 INR and 453 INR,
respectively) cost higher than the cost of government run primary schools (15 INR and
12 INR, respectively). Such a pattern is also evident in the private recognized but not
aided and private unrecognized schools wherein students are paying the higher cost
than the cost for government schools in both rural and urban areas.
The cost differences for private and government schools by household economic
status among general caste students is presented in Table III. It is evident in the table
that among the students of similar economic status, school cost borne for private and
government primary schools varies considerably. For instance, among student of poor
economic status the schooling cost is substantially higher for private aided and
recognized schools (2,503 INR) than the government run schools (13 INR).
 Government
Place School type Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum ANOVAa p-value
versus private
Rural Government 15.29 2.00 29.78 0.00 320.00 17.350 p , 0.000 primary schools
Private aided and
recognized 1,400.46 212.50 7,345.26 0.00 50,000.00
Private recognized
but not aided 449.22 265.00 528.31 0.00 2,900.00 715
Private
unrecognized 338.92 183.50 371.96 0.00 2,680.00
Others 710.00 147.50 1,032.85 0.00 3,300.00
Total 122.63 12.00 1,185.86 0.00 50,000.00
Urban Government 12.03 0.00 46.63 0.00 650.00
Private aided and
recognized 453.41 80.00 737.90 0.00 2,800.00
Private recognized
but not aided 751.77 250.00 1,221.25 0.00 6,400.00
Private
unrecognized 760.46 260.00 1,514.37 40.00 7,876.00
Others 528.67 10.00 1,073.73 0.00 3,335.00
Total 360.10 17.00 922.93 0.00 7,876.00
Total Government 14.84 2.00 32.63 0.00 650.00
Private aided and
recognized 853.08 170.00 4,797.26 0.00 50,000.00
Private recognized
but not aided 581.95 251.00 911.31 0.00 6,400.00
Private
unrecognized 441.35 205.00 828.57 0.00 7,876.00 Table II.
Others 616.21 50.00 1,039.35 0.00 3,335.00 Cost borne by general
Total 172.84 12.00 1,139.31 0.00 50,000.00 students for different
primary schools by place
Note: aANOVA for mean differentials of residence in India, 2005

The respective mean schooling cost for private aided and recognized and private
unrecognized primary schools (466 and 453 INR) also remains higher than the cost for
government run schools for students from the poor economic background. Similarly,
for the students of middle and affluent economic background, the primary school cost
difference among private and government schools remains high. Among the middle
economic background students, the schools cost of private aided and recognized
schools cost is as high as 458 INR while the government primary schools cost is only
12 INR. Similarly, among the students of affluent families, the mean schooling cost of
schooling show considerably greater for private aided and recognized schools (460 INR)
than the government run schools (19 INR).
For SC/ST category students, the overall cost is less compared to general caste
students in government schools. However, comparing the mean schooling costs across
government and private schools reveal that, the cost borne by the SC/ST students is
substantially higher in private aided and recognized schools (289 INR) compared to
government school (10 INR). Similar results are also found in rural and urban areas.
The mean schooling cost schooling cost borne by SC/ST students in private primary
schools in urban (717 INR) and rural (412 INR) is higher than the cost for government
primary schools in urban (10 INR) and rural (8 INR) (Table IV).
IJSSP
Wealth
33,11/12 index School type Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum ANOVAa p-value

Poor Government 12.89 0.00 28.83 0.00 320.00 12.272 p , 0.003

Private aided and
recognized 2,503.43 80.00 10,884.23 0.00 50,000.00
716 Private recognized
but not aided 465.56 225.00 856.87 0.00 6,000.00
Private
unrecognized 452.80 175.00 1,208.04 15.00 7,876.00
Others 660.00 120.00 1,165.50 0.00 2,400.00
Total 130.43 2.00 1,764.92 0.00 50,000.00
Middle Government 11.50 2.00 18.40 0.00 152.00
Private aided and
recognized 458.05 220.00 636.77 0.00 2,290.00
Private recognized
but not aided 340.04 202.50 428.76 0.00 2,100.00
Private
unrecognized 588.05 250.00 1,281.35 46.00 7,876.00
Others 714.44 55.00 1,336.73 10.00 3,300.00
Total 123.61 10.00 484.80 0.00 7,876.00
Rich Government 18.86 4.00 41.25 0.00 650.00
Private aided and
recognized 459.63 185.00 750.77 0.00 3,600.00
Private recognized
but not aided 670.96 300.00 994.24 0.00 6,400.00
Table III. Private
Cost borne by general unrecognized 397.99 205.00 452.90 0.00 2,680.00
students for different Others 550.00 42.50 883.64 0.00 3,335.00
primary schools by Total 227.91 25.00 578.38 0.00 6,400.00
wealth index in
India, 2005 Note: aANOVA for mean differentials

Compared to general caste student, the mean schooling cost borne by SC/ST students
for government and private primary schools also substantially varies within the same
economic groups. The students belonging to poor families pay substantially higher
cost for private aided and recognized (102 INR) than the government runs primary
schools (8 INR). Similar pattern is indicating for the other parallel private schools that
mean schooling cost born by SC/ST students for private recognized but not aided
(330 INR), and the private unrecognized (440 INR) are also considerably greater
compared to the mean schooling cost of government schools (8 INR). Similarly, the
students coming from middle and affluent households also borne higher mean
schooling cost for private aided and recognized schools than the government primary
schools. Students from middle economic status borne as high as 331 INR for
private aided and recognized while only 8 INR for government primary schools.
Moreover, students from affluent households borne 331 INR for private aided and
recognized but only 13 INR for government primary schools (Table V).
The mean schooling cost differentials among private and government schools by
place of residence and economic status categories are tested for statistical significance
by using ANOVA test. The results of ANOVA show that mean schooling cost
 Government
Place School type Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum ANOVAa p-value
versus private
Rural Government 10.07 0.00 22.04 0.00 274.00 98.832 p , 0.000 primary schools
Private aided and
recognized 306.93 170.00 558.63 0.00 3,600.00
Private recognized
but not aided 411.56 250.00 528.66 0.00 2,900.00 717
Private
unrecognized 321.64 180.00 364.41 0.00 2,680.00
Others 697.86 107.50 1,040.57 0.00 3,300.00
Total 86.51 3.00 274.95 0.00 3,600.00
Urban Government 8.33 0.00 44.55 0.00 650.00
Private aided and
recognized 275.97 0.00 591.20 0.00 2,800.00
Private recognized
but not aided 716.15 250.00 1,138.86 0.00 6,400.00
Private
unrecognized 712.48 210.00 1,524.54 0.00 7,876.00
Others 528.67 10.00 1,073.73 0.00 3,335.00
Total 321.54 6.00 875.81 0.00 7,876.00
Total Government 9.83 0.00 26.30 0.00 650.00
Private aided and
recognized 288.87 57.50 575.40 0.00 3,600.00
Private recognized
but not aided 545.19 250.00 863.74 0.00 6,400.00
Private
unrecognized 416.61 180.00 827.71 0.00 7,876.00 Table IV.
Others 610.34 35.00 1,042.39 0.00 3,335.00 Cost borne by SC/ST
Total 136.22 3.00 480.43 0.00 7,876.00 students for different
primary schools by place
Note: aANOVA for mean differentials of residence in India, 2005

differentials among private and government schools are statistically significant at

p , 0.001 among all the categories such as rural, urban, poor, middle and rich.

Performance of students
The quality of education as imparted by different schools can be captured to a large
extent, through the performance of students. This study examined the performance of
students in three categories: reading, writing and mathematics knowledge. In terms of
reading skills, the results reveals that, at the national level both private recognized
aided and not aided schools students can read story better (41 and 49 percent,
respectively) than the students from government run primary schools (27 percent).
Similar pattern is also evident for government and private schools in a rural area,
where students from private aided and recognized schools (40 percent) can read story
better than the students from government primary schools (26 percent). In urban,
41 percent of students from private aided and recognized and 36 percent of students
from government run primary schools can read the story. The x 2-test results show that
performance differentials among students studying government and private schools
are statistically significant with p-value , 0.001 and with considerable reasonably
higher x 2-value (Table VI).
IJSSP
Wealth
33,11/12 Index School Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum ANOVAa p-value

Poor Government 8.12 0.00 22.24 0.00 240.00 24.925 p , 0.000

Private aided and
recognized 102.00 32.50 158.79 0.00 600.00
718 Private recognized
but not aided 330.23 150.00 447.85 0.00 1,850.00
Private
unrecognized 440.07 151.00 1,211.42 0.00 7,876.00
Others 645.00 90.00 1,173.07 0.00 2,400.00
Total 56.39 0.00 324.61 0.00 7,876.00
Middle Government 7.78 0.00 13.72 0.00 65.00
Private aided and
recognized 331.10 150.00 537.63 0.00 2,290.00
Private recognized
but not aided 337.10 200.00 430.34 0.00 2,100.00
Private
unrecognized 568.70 250.00 1,275.90 45.00 7,876.00
Others 702.22 35.00 1,343.72 0.00 3,300.00
Total 113.08 3.00 474.37 0.00 7,876.00
Rich Government 12.86 0.00 34.31 0.00 650.00
Private aided and
recognized 331.41 50.00 654.93 0.00 3,600.00
Private recognized
but not aided 653.68 300.00 998.69 0.00 6,400.00
Table V. Private
Cost borne by SC/ST unrecognized 368.16 180.00 450.69 0.00 2,680.00
students for different Others 550.00 42.50 883.63 0.00 3,335.00
primary schools by Total 209.14 14.00 567.21 0.00 6,400.00
wealth index in
India, 2005 Note: aANOVA for mean differentials

The performance in mathematics test of students enrolled in government and private

primary schools by place of residence is presented in Table VII. Comparing division
skills among students of government and private schools at national level reveal that
private aided and recognized school students (33 percent) can do better than the
students enrolled into government schools (18 percent). Likewise, 35 percent of
students from private recognized but not aided and 23 percent of students from private
unrecognized schools can do division better than the students studying in government
primary schools. The comparison between government and private schools in rural
areas also foster findings that, students from private recognized but not aided
(33 percent) can do division better than the students from government schools
(17 percent). In urban, the students from private aided and recognized (37 percent) can
read do division better than the students studying in government primary schools
(24 percent). The performance differentials in mathematics among students from
government and private primary schools are tested for statistical significance by using
x 2-test. The result reveals that the differentials are statistically significant at p , 0.001
and with considerable high x 2-values.
The performance differentials among government and private primary
school students in writing test by place of residence is also analysed in this study.
 Government
Cannot
Place School read Letter Word Paragraph Story x2 p-values versus private
Rural Government 12.9 15.7 24.3 21.3 25.9 309.043 p , 0.000
primary schools
Private aided and
recognized 1.8 8.3 19.8 29.8 40.3
Private recognized but not 719
aided 5.4 12.0 17.2 18.3 47.0
Private unrecognized 15.5 10.7 13.2 22.5 38.1
Others 8.6 39.5 13.7 11.3 26.8
Total 11.3 15.0 22.7 21.0 30.1
Urban Government 6.8 11.5 19.9 25.4 36.4 132.440 p , 0.000
Private aided and
recognized 1.5 13.2 15.3 28.8 41.2
Private recognized but not
aided 2.9 7.9 14.0 24.6 50.6
Private unrecognized 6.1 7.6 16.9 26.9 42.5
Others 3.5 38.8 15.3 5.6 36.7
Total 4.6 10.0 16.7 25.2 43.5
Total Government 12.0 15.1 23.6 21.9 27.4 585.716 p , 0.000
Private aided and
recognized 1.7 10.4 17.8 29.4 40.7
Private recognized but not Table VI.
aided 4.3 10.1 15.7 21.2 48.7 Students on reading test
Private unrecognized 11.6 9.4 14.7 24.3 39.9 for different primary
Others 7.3 39.3 14.1 9.8 29.4 schools by place of
Total 9.7 13.8 21.2 22.0 33.3 residence in India, 2005

Place School Cannot Number Subtraction Division x2 p-values

Rural Government 22.6 37.8 23.1 16.5 366.790 p , 0.000

Private aided and recognized 5.1 36.2 29.3 29.5
Private recognized but not
aided 12.0 27.1 27.5 33.4
Private unrecognized 23.2 32.0 29.1 15.8
Others 13.6 40.9 16.1 29.4
Total 20. 35.8 24.1 19.9
Urban Government 14.2 31.1 31.2 23.5 147.214 p , 0.000
Private aided and recognized 5.9 18.5 38.5 37.1
Private recognized but not
aided 6.6 22.2 34.8 36.3
Private unrecognized 9.4 22.2 35.3 33.1
Others 15.9 43.4 20.7 20.0
Total 9.9 25.9 33.5 30.7
Total Government 21.4 36.8 24.3 17.5 710.987 p , 0.000
Private aided and recognized 5.4 28.4 33.3 32.8
Private recognized but not Table VII.
aided 9.6 24.9 30.8 34.7 Students on math test for
Private unrecognized 17.5 27.9 31.6 22.9 different primary schools
Others 14.2 41.6 17.3 27.0 by place of residence in
Total 17.8 33.5 26.3 22.4 India, 2005
IJSSP Comparing students who can write with two or less mistakes by school type reveals that,
33,11/12 private aided and recognized school students (33 percent) can write better than the
students from government run primary schools (18 percent). Likewise, 80 percent of
students from private recognized but not aided and 69 percent of students from private
unrecognized schools can write better with two or less mistakes than the students
studying in government schools. However, in urban area the students from private aided
720 and recognized (75 percent) can write slightly better with two or less mistakes than the
students from government primary schools (73 percent). Comparing government and
private schools in rural areas advance similar results that, students from private aided
and recognized schools (80 percent) can write better than the students going to
government primary schools (61 percent). The results of the x 2-test evidently shows that
the performance differentials among students studying in government and private
primary schools in writing are statistical significant at p , 0.001 (Table VIII).
Table IX presents the Theil decomposition for between group inequalities in
performance of students for government and private schools by place of residence.
At national level, between government and private school inequality is higher in
reading (0.290), followed with slightly lower in mathematics (0.247) and then lowest

Writes with two or less

Place School Cannot mistakes x2 p-values

Rural Government 38.7 61.3 160.498 p , 0.000

Private aided and recognized 20.1 79.9
Private recognized but not aided 23.8 76.2
Private unrecognized 39.1 60.9
Others 24.6 75.4
Total 35.5 64.5
Urban Government 27.0 73.0 54.354 p , 0.000
Private aided and recognized 25.5 74.5
Private recognized but not aided 16.4 83.6
Private unrecognized 19.8 80.2
Others 31.9 68.1
Total 21.7 78.3
Total Government 37.0 63.0 314.028 p , 0.000
Table VIII. Private aided and recognized 22.5 77.5
Students on writing test Private recognized but not aided 20.4 79.6
for different primary Private unrecognized 31.1 68.9
schools by place of Others 26.6 73.4
residence in India, 2005 Total 32.2 67.8

Table IX.
Place of residence Mathematics test Writing test Reading test
Theil index for between
group inequalities in Rural area 0.232 0.129 0.272
performance of students Urban area 0.015 2 0.002 0.014
of government and Total 0.247 0.127 0.290
private primary schools,
India, 2005 Note: Within group inequalities are not shown in the table as they are not the objective of this study
in writing (0.127). With regard to a rural area, between government and private school Government
inequality is higher in reading (0.272), but slightly reduced in mathematics test (0.232). The
between schools inequality in urban area in terms of mathematics, writing and reading test
versus private
comprises of 0.015, 20.002 and 0.014, respectively. However, the between school inequality primary schools
in urban area is less compared to rural counterparts for all the performance indicators.
The effect of schooling cost and infrastructure on the performance of students
studying in government and private primary schools in India is presented in Table X. 721
The results of student performance in terms of reading, writing and mathematics skills
reveal that there is considerable differential in performance of students by schooling
cost and infrastructure standards. In case of mathematics test, the performance of
students is considerably high (56 percent) among those paying higher schooling cost
than the students borne zero cost. By infrastructure standards, the result shows that,
the students enrolled into schools fulfilling infrastructure standards have better
performance (50 percent) than those studying in schools without the requisite
infrastructure standards (25 percent). Overall, the schooling cost and infrastructure
standards are showing considerable influence on the performance of students.

4. Discussion
The results of this study reveal that even at this age of growing privatization, the
government still has the biggest outlay in education or has the sole responsibility in
imparting education to Indian children. The infrastructure standards significantly vary
by the type of ownership of schools. In addition, irrespective of place of residence privately
run primary schools have better infrastructure than the government run schools.
The government primary schooling cost is less compared to private primary schools
in India. The schooling cost in privately managed schools can be hundred times higher
than the government schools. The schooling cost in privately run schools is higher
because they have to generate revenue for management and administrative cost such as
for the teachers’ salary and other expenditures which are not or partly met by government
agencies. Moreover, the profit motive of the privately run school cannot be undermined.
Therefore, irrespective of place of residence and economic background, the primary
schooling cost in private schools is considerably higher than the government schools.
In terms of performance of students, the findings of this study suggest that private
school students outperform the students from government schools in reading, writing
and mathematics tests. This pattern is followed for all the students irrespective of their
place of residence and economics status. The PROBE (1999) report notes that:

Mathematics Writing (with two or

Cost and infrastructure Reading (story) (division) less mistakes)

Cost
No cost 66.7 66.7
Cost between 1 and 500 46.7 26.7 73.3
Cost 501 and above 66.7 55.6 88.9
x 2- and p-value 7.020, p , 0.534 11.410, p , 0.077 1.029, p , 0.598 Table X.
Infrastructure Effects of schooling cost
Below standard 53.6 25 75 and infrastructure on
Fulfil standard 58.3 50 83.3 school performance in
x 2- and p-value 7.749, p , 0.101 8.742, p , 0.033 0.335, p , 0.563 India, 2005
IJSSP In a private school, the teachers are accountable to the manager (who can fire them), and,
through him or her, to the parents (who can withdraw their children). In a government schools
33,11/12 the chain of accountability is much weaker, as teachers have a permanent job with salaries
and promotions unrelated to performance. This contrast is perceived with crystal clarity by
the vast majority of parents.
Furthermore, evidence from surveys in a number of developing countries including
722 India, show that learning outcomes in private schools are on average better than the
government schools. The private school advantage remains even after controlling for a
large set of observable student family, school and teacher characteristics (Kremer and
Muralidharan, 2006; Tooley and Dixon, 2006). The inequalities between schools, using
Theil index reveals that inequalities are considerably high in mathematics skills
compared to reading and writing skills. Overall, between government and private
school inequalities in all the performance indicators is higher in rural than urban areas.
The infrastructure standards and schooling cost are showing a significant role in
affecting the performance of students both in private and public schools. This
corroborates the findings of many other studies conducted in this issue. A study
analyzing the effect of infrastructure on students’ performance in an elementary school
of New York city found that, in schools with poor facilities, students attended less days
on average and therefore had lower grades or scores in tests. The school attendance
along with test scores found to be higher for schools with adequate infrastructure
facilities (Duran-Narucki, 2008). Furthermore, studies documented the evidence for
the effect of school infrastructure on teacher’s attitude or motivation to teach in the
classroom. Teachers in the schools with satisfactory infrastructure facilities are
significantly more likely to express positive attitudes about their classrooms than
teachers in the schools with unsatisfactory infrastructure facilities (Earthman and
Lemasters, 2009). The analysis of this study also suggests a positive correlation
between school infrastructure, cost and performance of the students. Students
studying in schools fulfilling the infrastructure standards have better performance
than their counterparts from schools not having the standard infrastructure.

5. Conclusion
This study is an effort to fill a critical gap in education research in India. Using IHDS
data, the study documented evidences in differentiating educational standards in
government and private primary schools. A critical outcome of this study is that, the
private primary schools are imparting quality education to children in the country.
A study comparing public and private primary schools in rural India, found that
private schools are more common in areas wherein the public school performance is
poor. Compared to public schools, private schools pay much lower teacher salaries;
have lower pupil teacher ratios; and less multi-grade teaching. However, private school
teachers are 2-8 percent points less likely to be absent than teachers in public schools
and 6-9 percent points more likely to be engaged in teaching activity at any given point
in time. They are more likely to hold a college degree than public school teachers
(Muralidharan and Kremer, 2008). Though, it is being considered that only affluent
student can opt private school; since they have the ability to pay. But, this study
suggests that a considerable proportion of students from poor economic background
are also opting private schools for primary education. The standard answer and the
common perception is that private primary schools provide a better quality education.
This trend was first started by parents living in urban areas-the elite having opted out Government
of the government school system and the middle and lower income classes trying their versus private
level best to send their children to private school. Now, it is the rural counterpart from
poor households coming to the same conclusion. The other possible reasons for the primary schools
better performance of students from the private primary school could be its better
infrastructure standards, motivated students and teacher to perform well; however, the
important thing to underline is that schooling cost is also positively related with 723
performance of the students, irrespective of place of residence and economic status.
Though, the present analysis seems only groundwork to underpin our
understanding about the differentials existing between government and private
primary schools. Nevertheless, a few practical recommendations emerged out of this
study. Government of India needs to take into consideration the growing demand for
quality education for those belonging to poor economics and rural backgrounds. There
is an urgent need to improve the physical infrastructure standards in primary schools,
more particularly in government run primary schools for better quality of education.
As suggested by other researchers (Muralidharan, 2006; Narayan and Mooij, 2010),
a system of voucher program is a palpable solution for those students economically
burdened to get quality schooling. This is a program wherein children will have
financial assistance thereby, will be in a position to select any type of primary school
for quality schooling. Beside this, the special clause which is already mentioned in the
existing flagship program like Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and right of children to free and
compulsory education act, to strengthening community participation by forming
village education committee (VEC) should be enhanced and put in proper place for the
monitoring of the teachers’ activities as well as for the planning of infrastructure
development. Furthermore, recruitment of well qualified volunteers with the right
aptitude in teaching for the replacement of irregular teachers in government primary
schools could be another viable option to enhance the quality of teaching.

References
Desai, S., Dubey, A., Vanneman, R. and Banerji, R. (2010), Private Schooling in India: A New
Educational Landscape – Report of India Human Development Survey, Maryland
University and National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
DFID (2004), Delivering Cost Effective and Sustainable School Infrastructure, Department
for International Development, available at: www.dfid.gov.uk/. . ./governmentations1/
del-cost-eff-sust-sch-infra.pdf
Duran-Narucki, V. (2008), “School building condition, school attendance, and academic
achievement in New York city public schools: a mediation model”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 278-286.
Earthman, G.I. and Lemasters, L.K. (2009), “Teacher attitudes about classroom conditions”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 323-335.
Mehta, A. (2005), Elementary Education in Unrecognized Schools in India: A Study of Punjab
Based on DISE 2005 Data, NIEPA, New Delhi.
Meyer, J.W., Ramirez, F.O., Rubinson, R. and Boli-Bennett, J. (1977), “The world educational
revolution, 1950-1970”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 242-258.
Muralidharan, K. (2006), “Government-private partnerships for quality education in India”, Seminar
(565), available at: http://india-seminar.com/2006/565/565_karthik_muralidharan.htm
IJSSP Muralidharan, K. and Kremer, M. (2008), “Government and private schools in rural India”,
in Chakrabarti, R. and Petersen, P. (Eds), School Choice International: Exploring
33,11/12 Government Private Partnerships, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 91-110.
Narayan, K. and Mooij, J. (2010), “Solutions to teacher absenteeism in rural government primary
schools in India: a comparison of management approaches”, The Open Education Journal,
Vol. 3, pp. 63-71.
724 Office of Registrar General of India (2011), Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
Pratham (2005), Annual Status of Education Report, Pratham Documentation Center, New Delhi.
PROBE (1999), Government Report on Basic Education in India, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi.
PROBE (2009), Government Report on Basic Education in India, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi.
Singh, A. (1999), “Educational imbalance in India: transition from school to college”, Economic
and Political Weekly, 26 June, pp. 1675-1679.
Tilak, J.B.G. (2004), “Government subsidies in education in India”, Economic and Political Weekly,
24 January, pp. 343-359.
Tooley, J. and Dixon, P. (2005), “Private schools serving the poor”, Working Paper: A Study from
Delhi, India, Centre for Civil Society, New Delhi.
Tooley, J. and Dixon, P. (2006), “De Facto’ privatization of education and the poor: implications of
a study from sub-Saharan Africa and India”, Compare, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-462.

Further reading
Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Duflo, E. and Linden, L. (2007), “Remedying education: evidence from two
randomized experiments in India”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122 No. 3,
pp. 1235-1264.
Jimenez, E. and Lockheed, M.E. (1995), “Government and private secondary education in
developing countries: a comparative study”, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 309,
The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Kingdon, G.G. (2007), “The progress of school education in India”, Global Poverty Research
Group Working Paper No. 071, London School of Economics, London, pp. 111-142.
Kingdon, G.G. (2008), “Private and government schooling: the Indian experience”, in Chakrabarti, R.
and Petersen, P. (Eds), School Choice International: Exploiting Government-Private
Partnerships, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Corresponding author
Jitendra Gouda can be contacted: jitushome@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints