Intervention
BLIND
The intervention was an information campaign. The tools used in the campaign consisted of a short film of 6 minutes, poster, wall-painting, take-home calendar and learning assessment booklet. The tools were same across states, except the information contained was state-specific. There are state-specific differences in the nature and extent of devolution, that is, in the structures created for the community to exercise local governance of schools and the amount of oversight devolved (described in The film, poster, wall-painting and calendar focused on the following information: details of roles and responsibilities of school councils; rules for selection of council members; rules for council meetings including number of mandatory meetings, minimum attendance required in meetings and record keeping of minutes; organization and funding of school accounts; right to information with respect to schools including right to obtain copies of any school record; where to complain about any problems; benefits that students in primary grades are entitled to such as cash stipend, textbooks, mid-day meal, school uniforms. The film, poster and wall-painting contained key information highlights (In addition to the information campaign treatment in the three states, there was a second treatment only in Karnataka. This was a slightly different treatment with an additional 2 minute capsule at the end of the film which showed average wages for different levels of schooling to increase awareness of the economic benefits of schooling and advocated the audience to become involved in monitoring school outcomes. All other tools were the same as in the first treatment.Campaign teams were blind to baseline and follow up surveys. The first round consisted of three visits to a GP, each visit separated by a period of two-three weeks. A key feature of the campaign was community-wide big public meetings that parents, teachers and school committee were invited to attend. On each visit, the team organized 2–3 such meetings across different neighborhoods of the GP. The target audience comprised of parents, school council members, and teachers. Separate meetings were held in low- and high- caste neighborhoods. The invitations were broadly publicized 2–3 days in advance via an audio track, the local village announcer and enlisting the primary school teachers’ help.A meeting lasted about 40 minutes during which the film was screened twice followed by opportunity to ask questions, and discussion among the audience. To ensure uniformity, research assistants followed a script, read out the introduction and were only allowed to reply to questions to which the answers were already written on the calendars. Any other questions or issues raised were not answered. The team was instructed to not participate in any discussion that took place among the community members following the film presentation. The audience was told that the information was collected from the government.After a meeting, calendars and learning assessment booklets were distributed door-to-door. Posters and wall-paintings were displayed in the school and other prominent locations.The second round was similar to the first—each GP visited thrice and visits separated by a period of three-four weeks. A focus group discussion in a small sample of treatment villages (see below) between the two intervention rounds informed the following changes based on suggestions from participants in the way meetings were organized without changing anything substantial. One change was that meetings were now mainly held at the school. If members from some caste groups or women were not willing to come to the common meeting due to village norms, then the team would hold another meeting in their neighborhood. A second change was that the film was excluded the last 2 times meetings were held. With the same film shown repeatedly, it was difficult to attract audience for the meetings. A third change was that in order to inform the illiterate audience, key information in the calendar was read aloud exactly as written to preserve uniformity. The campaign ended with 11 to 14 repeat meetings in every village cluster or GP over the two and half year period.