Teach the Children Well.

October 16, 2024 9:13 PM

The most efficient ways of improving education in developing countries. "We find that while many interventions are not cost-effective, some of the most cost-effective interventions can deliver the equivalent of over three years of high-quality education (i.e., three years of learning in a high-performing country such as Singapore) for as little as $100 per child. This suggests that despite the huge challenges children and schools face in low- and middle- income countries, from poor health and nutrition of children to weakly performing teachers, the right investments can deliver huge returns, even against the benchmark of the best-performing systems. Some of the most consistently cost-effective approaches include..."

"...interventions to target teaching instruction by learning level rather than grade (e.g., “Teaching at the Right Level” interventions and tracking interventions); and improved pedagogy in the form of structured lesson plans with linked student materials, teacher professional development, and monitoring (which includes multi-faceted interventions such as Tusome in Kenya). In India, for example, targeted instruction yields up to 3 to 4 additional learning-adjusted years of schooling per $100—a gain equivalent to the entire system-level education gap between India and Argentina.3 In contrast, other interventions such as providing school inputs alone (that is, without necessary complementary changes) perform poorly because they tend not to boost access or learning substantively. Shifting the marginal dollar of government expenditure from low-efficiency to high-efficiency educational investments could therefore yield very substantial benefits per dollar spent."

posted by storybored (7 comments total)

I have only skimmed this so far, and my knowledge of educational approaches and statistics may both be too poor to really understand this, but this looks FASCINATING, and based on my brief skim, thoughtful and helpful.

One of my driving motivations is "How can we do stuff better?" and I am always so heartened and encouraged when I see people trying to really answer that question, to make lives better, especially in places and fields where that can make a substantial difference.

I am really looking forward to digging into this.

Thank you so much for posting this, storybored. I am grateful.
posted by kristi at 9:56 PM on October 16 [5 favorites]

Tim (BBC More or Less) Harford, in an analysis of development aid effectiveness, reported a (more or less) randomized controlled trial RCT in Kenya which found that

• sending crates of textbooks [in English, which isn't even the second language of the kids] into schools made no difference
• lo-tech flip-charts with engaging bright pictures ditto brrrp!
• otoh, dosing all the kids (and the teachers?) with anthelmintics to reduce the parasitic worm burden perked everyone up, ready to learn and less likely to pull a sickie. Result: demonstrable improvement in the LOs Learning Outcomes

Don't believe a word of it until it's been replicated in Cameroon! also from the FPP cite "and similarly, a deworming program is unlikely to be cost-effective in a place with low levels of intestinal worms."
My source Black Box Thinking (2015) by Matthew Syed; a breezy Gladwellesque book which shd be read with your skeptics hat ON.
posted by BobTheScientist at 11:20 PM on October 16 [3 favorites]

...interventions to target teaching instruction by learning level rather than grade (e.g., “Teaching at the Right Level” interventions and tracking interventions)...

In India, for example, targeted instruction yields up to 3 to 4 additional learning-adjusted years of schooling

This part seemed particularly interesting to me.

I recall reading some authoritative-seeming research into remedial classes in higher ed that found they delayed student growth compared to just enrolling incoming students into "normal" 101-level classes. I also recall studies talking about mainstreaming and not holding back students improved outcomes, vs retaining students in grade levels that seemingly more matched their capabilities (again, citation needed...).

All of those sound like some form of targeted instruction, in trying to match students to classes that match their capabilities, that don't have positive impact. At least not in the US.

Am I misunderstanding what targeted instruction is? Is it a difference in outcomes between WEIRD and other countries? Am I mis-remembering prior research? Or are all of the above examples more similar to putting students on a failure track rather than something that actually resembles targeted instruction?
posted by Number Used Once at 11:34 AM on October 17 [2 favorites]

FTA:

"Many interventions include training of teachers; for this analysis, when a program provides materials to help teachers target instruction to the level of the child and also provides training to those teachers, we classify that as a “targeted instruction” intervention. “Teacher training” captures only general-skills teacher training programs without other major elements. "
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:48 PM on October 17

> Am I misunderstanding what targeted instruction is? Is it a difference in outcomes between WEIRD and other countries? Am I mis-remembering prior research? Or are all of the above examples more similar to putting students on a failure track rather than something that actually resembles targeted instruction?

Yep; cohorting, streaming and mastery-based are different.

They appear to be talking about mastery based education. Targeting for each individual student.

Imagine a chip factory.

Cohorting: The chip goes through the factory. Each stage is done in sequence. Only extreme failure in QA tests changes this. When it comes out, you look at the QA results and sell it at different prices.

Streaming: The chip gets QA during manufacture. If there are problems (corrupted cache?), the chip is immediately routed to a "lower tier" manufacturing line that produces product that sells at a discount.

Mastery: Each component of the chip gets QA. If there are problems, that component is reworked until it passes QA. Other sub components of the chip continue to be iterated on if possible.

Applying this to kids is very dehumanizing, but...
posted by NotAYakk at 12:53 PM on October 17 [6 favorites]

Everything I read rn about improving education makes me chew my teeth. I think almost the only valid thing I learned about lesson planning over a decade plus was “start with the end in mind.” That is, know what you want to achieve by the end of the lesson/unit/year/whatever.

With that thought, if we examine what is the “end in mind” for most non-elite education, it is to make a lot of drones who are technically proficient at whatever they’re going to do until they’re 65 or 70, and not necessarily much that they care about or is good for them, their families, and their communities. School is going to suck more and more until we admit that education should be for people and communities, not just for pipelining human resources to corporations. That’s it.

It would help to start teaching reading later, so it’s not so frustrating, but that’s actually part of the sorting. You can give worm medicine, books in English, books local language — doesn’t much matter as long as your “end in mind” is supplying meat robots.
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:26 PM on October 17 [2 favorites]

Tracking, targeting, social advancement, testing, least restrictive environment etc. the controversy is not over whether they improve the learning of those involved and those around them, its about the non educational use of these programs to accomplish or reinforce segregation and discrimination.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 2:55 AM on October 18 [1 favorite]