A rejoinder to Sarangapani and Winch

Oxford Review of Education

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 517-520

  Tooley, James ^a   Dixon, Pauline ^a   Gomathi, S V ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b The Educare Trust   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955598617     PISSN: 03054985     EISSN: 14653915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2010.509169     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) (2008) India (rural) report 2008 (New Delhi, Pratham).
2. ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) (2009) India (rural) report 2009 (New Delhi, Pratham).
3. Sarangapani, P. (2009) Quality, feasibility and desirability of low cost private schooling: what is the evidence? Economic & Political Weekly, 44(43), 24 October, 67-69.
4. Sarangapani, P. & Winch, C. (2010) Tooley, Dixon and Gomathi on private education in Hyderabad: a reply, Oxford Review of Education, 36(4), 499-515.
5. Tooley, J. (1998) The Neo-liberal critique of state intervention in education: a reply to Winch, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 32(2), 267-281.
6. Tooley, J. (2000) Reclaiming education (London and New York, Continuum).
7. Tooley, J. & Dixon, P. (2003) Private schools for the poor: a case study from India (Reading, CfBT).
8. Tooley, J., Dixon, P., Shamsan, Y. & Schagen, I. (2010) The relative quality and cost-effectiveness of private and public schools for low-income families: a case study in a developing country, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(2), 117-144.
9. Tooley, J., Dixon, P. & Gomathi, S.V. (2007) Private schools and the millennium development goal of universal primary education: a census and comparative survey in Hyderabad, India, Oxford Review of Education, 33(5), 539-560.
10. Unesco (2008) EFA global monitoring report 2009 (Oxford, Oxford University Press).