In a multiple-shift system, schools cater for two or more entirely separate groups of
pupils during a school day (Bray, 1989).
Multiple-shift systems can be highly cost-effective. They can permit
substantial financial savings, and do not necessarily cause a decline in
quality. And even when introduction of multiple-shift schooling does
cause some loss of quality, the benefits of reduced unit costs and of larger
enrolments may outweigh the cost implied by the loss of quality. (ibid,
p93)
However, Bray stresses that, if multiple-shift systems are to operate cost-effectively,
education authorities must give due consideration to a range of factors (choice of model,
management structures, hours of schooling, out-of -school learning, use of teachers,
extra rooms, use of other community facilities). Bray also points out that "multiple-shift
schooling is rarely popular with the general public" (p98), and there is a need to take
account of the social and political context in policy-making.
2.3 Preprimary education
There is considerable evidence from research in developing nations that
well-conceived, well-implemented preprimary educational programs can
significantly increase the cognitive outcomes children obtain during their
primary school years.
(Raudenbush et al, 1991, p255)
As an example, they give evidence from Thailand which shows the following effects of
preprimary education on achievement in mathematics and in the Thai language:
maths
Thai
urban 0.15 SD units (see Appendix B, note a)
rural 0.08 SD units
urban 0.16 SD units
rural 0.10 SD units
The cost per head per year in 1985 was $US 249.64 for 2-year kindergartens, $US
164.80 for 1-year preprimary schools, and $US 91.56 for child care centres. These costs
are not cheap in comparison with unit costs for primary education in many countries (eg.
in sub-Saharan Africa). Preprimary education for all may not, therefore, be an attractive
investment policy option.