Spending privately for education despite having a free public education policy: evidence from Sri Lankan household surveys

Abstract

PurposeCompared to other neighbouring South Asian countries, Sri Lanka performs well in terms of education outcomes. Education is provided by the government for free from primary school level to the first-degree University level, yet households’ private education expenses are steadily increasing over time. Thus, this paper analyses trends and determinants of household private education expenditures using the country-wide micro-data from 1990 to 2013.Design/methodology/approachUsing Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) 1990/91, 2002 and 2012/13 data along with annual school census data, this paper examines the relationship between private education expenditure patterns and the observed changes of reported both demand-side and supply-side factors. In particular, the present paper analyses determinants of household private education expenditures within the two-part model econometric framework by taking into account location and time fixed-effects.FindingsThe results show that trend of spending privately for education is increasing over time with rising household income. Rural, Tamil and Islamic households and those headed by less-educated members are less likely to spend privately for education. The results also confirm that improved-supply-side factors can significantly lower the household burden arising from out-of-pocket education expenditure.Research limitations/implicationsUnavailability of panel data and missing data on several districts due to security concerns are limitations of the study.Social implicationsThe trend of increasing private education expenses has implications on equity concerns of education in Sri Lanka, and it can undermine the purpose of free public education policy.Originality/valueTo our knowledge, this is the first study for Sri Lanka that examines patterns and determinants of private education expenditures using nationwide data for last two decades. This paper applies novel econometric techniques to account for various issues in household survey data analysis.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-07-2019-0445

Throwing light on fee-charging tutoring during the global pandemic in Kazakhstan: implications for the future of higher education

“…This finding, related to the tangible gains of PT in relation to measurable educational outcomes for students, aligns with the findings of most previous studies on PT conducted in Kazakhstan (Hajar et al, 2022 ; Kalikova & Rakhimzhanova, 2009 ) and in other parts of the world, including Hong Kong (Yung, 2021 ), Russia (Prakhov & Yudkevich, 2020 ), Sri Lanka (Pallegedara & Kumara, 2020 ), the Czech Republic (Šťastný, 2021 ) and the UK (Ireson & Rushforth, 2011 ; Pearce et al, 2017 ). According to Bray and Kwo ( 2014 , p. ix), “tutoring tends to reinforce only one dimension of education: learning to know” of the four pillars proposed in UNESCO’s Delors Report ( 1996 ), i.e., learning to be, learning to do, and learning to live together.…”

Contribution of Shadow Education to the Performance of Students in Public Schools: The Case of Sri Lanka

“…In Sri Lankan context, empirical studies on private tutoring are very few and not to assess contribution of private tutoring to student performance. Some of them inquire into reasons for demand for shadow education (Damayanthi, 2018; Pallegedara, 2012), and some are to analyze expenditure on the same (Pallegedara, 2011; Pallegedara & Kumara, 2020). Cole (2016) conducted a study after analyzing 5 months of private tutoring of primary students in Sri Lanka which found that there is no impact on Year five students’ exam scores.…”

Household Expenditure on Secondary Education in Haryana (India): Levels, Patterns and Determinants

“…Interestingly, households not only forego their consumption expenditure to provide education for their wards, rather they have also expressed their willingness to borrow money to provide for this purpose (Tsui & Rich, 2002; Yueh, 2006). We also find many studies (Bhattacharya, 2012; Ghosh & Bray, 2020; Gill, 2017a, 2017b; Pallegedara & Kumara, 2020; Tilak, 1996, 2002, 2021; Tripathi, 2019) that have examined the various components (e.g., course fee, books, stationery, uniform, food, transportation, private coaching, etc.) of household spending on education, and established that course fee in private schools is a substantial segment in this context.…”

“…Besides, studies have constructed a consensus with regard to the impact of family background (or household characteristics), institutional factors and household spending on education (Azam & Kingdon, 2013; Datta & Kingdon, 2019; Demiroglari & Gurler, 2020; Duraisamy & Duraisamy, 2016; Iddrisu et al, 2018; Kumar et al, 2017; Pallegedara & Kumara, 2020; Panchmukhi, 2006; Tilak, 2002, 2021; Tripathi, 2019). The girls in developing countries tend to have poorer educational outcomes compared to boys, and this is mainly due to parental pro-male gender discrimination, which is manifested by way of allocating a lower level of intra-household budgetary spending on the education of girls vis-à-vis the boys (Azam & Kingdon, 2013; Chaudhuri & Roy, 2006; Saha, 2013; Singh & Gill, 2021; World Bank, 1994).…”