How much can we remedy very low learning levels in rural parts of low-income countries? Impact and generalizability of a multi-pronged para-teacher intervention from a cluster-randomized trial in the Gambia

Abstract

Despite large schooling and learning gains in many developing countries, children in highly deprived areas are often unlikely to achieve even basic literacy and numeracy. We study how much of this problem can be resolved using a multi-pronged intervention combining three interventions known to be separately effective. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in The Gambia evaluating a literacy and numeracy intervention designed for primary-aged children in remote parts of poor countries. The intervention combines para teachers delivering after-school supplementary classes, scripted lesson plans, and frequent monitoring focusing on improving teacher practice (coaching). A similar intervention previously demonstrated large learning gains in rural India. After three academic years, Gambian children allocated to the intervention scored 46 percentage points (3.2 SD) better on a combined literacy and numeracy test than control children. Our results demonstrate that, in this type of area, aggressive interventions can yield far greater learning gains than previously shown.

Large Learning Gains in Pockets of Extreme Poverty: Experimental Evidence from Guinea Bissau

“…While the intervention is much more highly-resourced than other interventions in this literature, a rough benefit-cost calculation suggests that, even using conservative assumptions, it is highly costefficient. This work, in conjunction with Eble et al (2021), shows that the upper bound on the magnitude of intervention-driven learning gains in such deprived areas is much larger than previously thought. Finally, our study provides an opportunity to follow these children later in life, and learn about the longer-term economic and social returns to education, and literacy and numeracy more specifically, in a particularly poor region.…”

“…This level of teacher absenteeism is less severe than found in Uganda inChaudhury et al (2006) and at the lower end of the range of whatBlimpo, Evans, and Lahire (2011) observe in Gambia.7 Originally this study was part of a larger effort to study the generalizability of a para teacher intervention in India(Lakshminarayana et al 2013), run in tandem with a similar effort in The Gambia(Eble et al 2021) …”

“…17 EGRA and EGMA tests assess early grade reading and math ability, respectively (Platas et al 2014;Dubeck and Gove 2015). They are administered orally, one-on-one between 17 Our aggregation of EGRA and EGMA tests into a composite score was chosen for simplicity as a single primary outcome, and for consistency with related work on delivering educational interventions to other deprived areas (Lakshminarayana et al 2013;McEwan 2015;Evans and Popova 2016;Eble et al 2021). We note that this method of aggregation is a departure from conventional use of EGRA and EGMA scores.…”

“…This focus informed the design of all teaching and learning materials, from textbooks to teacher handbooks and lesson plans. These materials also incorporated scripted lessons, which have been shown to work in numerous settings (Piper et al 2018;Romero, Sandefur, and Sandholtz 2020;Eble et al 2021) and are alleged to be particularly helpful for teachers with less training and suboptimal supervision, potentially raising the level of the "floor" of teaching quality in challenging contexts. The absence of heterogeneity in the treatment effect shows the intervention worked similarly for all children.…”

How to Improve Education Outcomes Most Efficiently? A Comparison of 150 Interventions using the New Learning-Adjusted Years of Schooling Metric

“…We start with over 300 studies compiled from a database produced by , which draws studies from a wide range of reviews (Evans and Popova 2016a;Glewwe et al 2013;Kremer, Brannen and Glennerster 2013;Krishnaratne et al 2013;Ganimian and Murnane 2016). We then add 13 studies from the World Bank Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund (SIEF), as well as four additional recent studies that have rigorous evaluation methodologies and high-quality impact and cost data (Romero, Sandefur, and Sandholtz 2020;Sabates et al 2018;Piper et al 2018;Eble et al 2020).…”