With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
CGD's work in this area seeks to better understand the sources of global learning gaps and to identify solutions to help close these gaps.
While primary school enrolment levels have increased dramatically in recent decades, this progress has not been matched by equivalent gains in learning. Millions of children in the developing world leave school without basic literacy and numeracy skills. CGD seeks to better understand what causes this learning gap and to identify policies and ideas to help end the global learning crisis.
Currently, the bulk of the new empirical work on estimating the impact on learning of various education projects/ programmes/policies, while based on sound principles of estimating causal impacts, is far too inadequately theorised and specified to be of much immediate and direct use in formulating effective action to accelerate learning. The RISE research agenda is moving forward by: (a) embedding research into a prior diagnostic of the overall system, (b) evaluating on-going attempts at education reform at scale, (c) specifying the details of programme/project/policy design, and (d) acknowledging that policy relevant learning is itself part of the system.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in education that combine public finance to provide free or subsidized access to privately delivered education are expanding in many developing countries, either to increase access where government capacity is limited or to improve learning outcomes—often with limited evidence on their success. This panel brings together experts from the policy and research spheres to review what we know about the design of effective partnerships, the hazards to be avoided, and the frontiers for new research.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in education that combine public finance to provide free or subsidized access to privately delivered education are expanding in many developing countries, either to increase access where government capacity is limited or to improve learning outcomes—often with limited evidence on their success. This panel will bring together experts from the policy and research spheres to review what we know about the design of effective partnerships, the hazards to be avoided, and the frontiers for new research.
The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) sponsored by USAID are possibly the single biggest source of public health information in the developing world. While they focus on health and fertility issues, they’re also an important source for education statistics. In particular, the standard DHS questionnaire used in dozens of countries asks respondents to read a single sentence off a cue card, providing a valuable, direct (i.e., not just self-reported) measure of literacy in places where no other reliable info exists. As I noted in a previous post, this data provides one of the few internationally comparable measures of the quality of girls schooling across a large number of poor countries. So three cheers for the DHS!
However… the value of the DHS literacy data is significantly undermined by a small, easily fixable flaw in the way the survey is administered. The result of this flaw, as I show below, is that the DHS significantly overstates literacy rates (and hence the quality of schooling) for large swaths of the world's population. The easy fix for this problem is a tiny tweak to the survey questionnaire.
The core of the problem is that the DHS doesn't test literacy for people who went to secondary school, and simply assumes they're literate. As it turns out, this is wildly optimistic. (To be clear, DHS is not being deceitful or misleading here, just explicitly choosing to give women who went to secondary school the benefit of the doubt.)
How do we know people who went to secondary school really aren't literate if the DHS doesn’t ask? I asked my former CGD colleague Lee Crawfurd of Ark what other data sources we could cross-reference, and he noted that the World Bank asks adults similar questions. The STEP Skills Measurement Program administers a battery of cognitive skills tests to a nationally representative sample of adult respondents in a dozen or so countries around the world, including three developing countries that also have DHS literacy data.
What we found when we compared two data sources
For comparability, Lee and I looked at similar demographic samples across both surveys: here we use women age 25 to 44 at the time of the survey with anywhere from zero to eighteen years of schooling, scored by whether they could read a single sentence. (We focused on women because we were writing a paper about girls' schooling, but this could be repeated for men in countries where DHS does a men’s survey.) Note that respondents in the DHS are given one sentence to read, while STEP records whether they could read any of the twenty sentences they were shown. The STEP survey was also administered between 2011 and 2013, while survey years for the DHS rounds used here range from 2008 to 2015, though it seems improbable this timing issue could explain the discrepancies we see.
The precise threshold varies by country for how much schooling you need before DHS stops asking the literacy question and just starts assuming. In most cases, enumerators skip the question if the respondent has gone beyond primary school. In some cases, the cutoff is lower (as in Bolivia, where DHS assumes you're literate if you made it to third grade), and in some cases it's higher (like in Ghana, one of only two countries we've found where DHS keeps asking the question through the end of senior secondary school).
As the graphs clearly show, assuming people are literate leads DHS to some dubious conclusions. Rather than 100 percent literacy, the PIACC test finds that the real literacy rate for Bolivian women with a third-grade education is probably under 20 percent. Granted, these discrepancies are not as stark in Ghana and Kenya. But even looking at Ghanaian women who left school after secondary, STEP’s actual literacy rates are about 70 percent rather than 100 percent. And there are many other countries without STEP data to prove the point where the sudden jump to 100 percent literacy in the DHS seems like a fairly severe problem.
Nigeria is an extreme case, where barely 10 percent of women who left school after sixth grade can read a single sentence according to the DHS, but those who went on to a seventh year are assumed to be 100 percent literate. Again, there's no STEP benchmark to compare to for Nigeria, but that leap seems improbable, if not arithmetically impossible.
As a side note, we should acknowledge that in theory it's possible that the admissions requirements are so strenuous for Nigerian secondary schools, that simply due to selection -- rather than any additional learning -- literacy rates really do jump up at secondary school. In practice, this doesn't seem to be the case. I emailed my colleague Lant Pritchett about this alternative explanation, since he's written a whole book about how "Schooling Ain't Learning", and he replied "empirically cannot be true." Simply look at the share of Nigerian students moving from grade six to seven (i.e. most). The number of students being winnowed out just isn't big enough to produce a literacy jump from 10 percent to 100 percent, and he sent me this graph. (Q.E.D.)
Luckily, this measurement problem has an easy fix
At a recent research workshop on the demographic effects of girls schooling, I was presenting econometric results using this DHS literacy data and struggling to explain the possible biases due to the truncation of the literacy variable. Ann Blanc of the Population Council helpfully pointed out that there was an obvious solution requiring no econometrics: ask DHS to remove the filter on the question. Just test everybody.
So that's my simple plea. During the last administration, Michelle Obama's slogan was to "Let all girls learn," which I obviously applaud. And as a first step toward taking that project seriously, I have a minor data request: "let all illiterate women (and men) be counted."
Update: After posting this, I learned via the hive mind of Twitter that the newest DHS questionnaire has already made (more or less) the change recommended at the end of this piece. See here for a June 1st DHS blog post unveiling the change to how literacy is measured, including data from Malawi which is the first country to field the new questionnaire. So while my worries about existing literacy measures remain, new data going forward should give us a more complete picture.
RISE is a large scale, multi-country research programme developed to answer the question: “How can education systems be reformed to deliver better learning for all?” The objective of this year’s conference is to bring together high profile academics and policy makers to discuss the RISE research agenda. The conference will feature a range of invited and contributed talks and panels, as well as three sessions focused on our six Country Research Teams (CRTs), including the announcement of our two newest CRTs. The RISE Programme is a collaboration between the Center for Global Development in Washington DC, the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, and Oxford Policy Management in Oxford, UK, and our CRTs include Tanzania, India, Pakistan, and Vietnam, with two further countries to be announced shortly.
A commission led by the UN's special envoy for education, Gordon Brown, is calling for a doubling of global aid for education, without any clear reform agenda to raise learning levels in the world's failing school systems. That might be ok: bad schools in poor countries still seem to produce big benefits.
Last week the Center for Global Development hosted a panel with three heads of state vying to raise money for three rival education funds. Former UK prime minister Gordon Brown and former Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete were there to pitch a new entity they want to set up called the International Finance Facility for Education, aka IFFed, which they're billing as an analog to the widely celebrated Global Fund in health.
Awkwardly, something "like the Global Fund but for education" already exists, and its board chair was also on stage in the person of Julia Gillard, former Prime Minister of Australia, representing the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), which is also looking for money to replenish its coffers. Luckily, they seem to have agreed on a way to carve up the education landscape:
Brown's proposed fund, the IFFed, would serve lower middle-income countries, allowing them to borrow for education at concessional rates.
Gillard and GPE will continue to focus on low income countries with grant money. (Though, awkwardly again, the IFFed's list of "pioneer countries" also includes a number of low-income countries from the GPE's list, like Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania. Why do we need a new organization again?)
And lastly, UNICEF's new "Education Cannot Wait" fund—represented on the panel last week by Tony Lake, UNICEF's Executive Director—will serve the true bottom of the pyramid, so to speak: refugees and displaced people.
Now, if only there was any money to divide. Aid budgets are tight these days. All the panelists were members of the U.N. Commission that Brown chaired on financing the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals for education. And the one thing all the panelists agreed on was that much more money was needed, both in aid and in domestic spending in developing countries.
Money probably won't improve school quality
Nobody on the panel had any appetite to talk about politically difficult education reforms that might turn money into learning.
Indeed, rather than focusing on the UN's new global learning goals, Gordon Brown and colleagues have shifted their focus to global spending goals. That's a very different conversation: in the unlikely event large amounts of new aid money are forthcoming in today's political climate, they're far from guaranteed to produce learning outcomes.
This is something of a departure from the text of Brown's Education Commission report, which dives deep into data and current literature on how to achieve learning for all. It bemoans the 'learning crisis' in many developing countries, reviews effective interventions to overcome the crisis, the need for more and better learning assessment, and notes that more spending often isn't the answer (see Figure 1 which shows Vietnam's high performance and low spending, and the inverse spending-performance relationship in a sample of Pakistani districts). Even as it turns to the question of finance, the report focuses on innovative mechanisms to incentivize reform and a stronger focus on learning.
That was the bait, now comes the switch. In the very last chapter the report turns to its "ask", tallying up why the world needs to raise education spending by $200 billion a year. And in the public discussion of the Commission's work, it's those spending goals—not all the careful analysis of reforming school systems—which now dominate the conversation.
Throwing money at failing school systems is welcome, but unlikely to work. A vast body of research questions the link between education spending and learning outcomes, and some of the best micro research on interventions to improve learning focuses on things that cost zero money, or even reduce education budgets.
In a review of programs to raise learning in the developing world in the journal Science, Michael Kremer, Conner Brannen, and Rachel Glennerster reach a conclusion broadly at odds with the push for money first:
[A]mong those in school, test scores are remarkably low and unresponsive to more-of-the-same inputs, such as hiring additional teachers, buying more textbooks, or providing flexible grants. In contrast, pedagogical reforms that match teaching to students’ learning levels are highly cost effective at increasing learning, as are reforms that improve accountability and incentives, such as local hiring of teachers on short-term contracts.
The things that Kremer et al say don't work are precisely the things the Education Commission is budgeting an extra $200 billion in global spending to expand. In contrast, the promising reforms that the authors describe here tend to have two things in common: first, they're often quite cheap, or even free; and second they're politically difficult.
But bad schools still seem to produce good outcomes
While the research literature shows a weak link from money to learning gains, it also shows that education in the developing world has amazingly high returns. This is paradoxical. We know that learning levels in poor countries are abysmally low. In an earlier post, I showed that in half of the fifty or so developing countries where we have data, fewer than 50 percent of women who left school after fifth grade could read a single sentence.
Sending kids to school has huge social returns, particularly for girls. Not only are the wage returns to a year of schooling generally estimated at around 10 percent per annum, but more educated women have fewer children and their children are less likely to die. This is somewhat puzzling if school isn't even teaching them to read.
In a background paper for the Education Commission, my colleagues Mari Oye, Lant Pritchett and I show the relationship between girls' schooling and outcomes like women's fertility and their children's survival is significantly higher where schools produce more learning. The correlation between a year of schooling and child survival is roughly two-thirds higher in countries with the highest versus lowest level of school quality.
Looking at the individual level data, women who completed six years of primary schooling had roughly 0.6 fewer children than women with no schooling, and those children were about 5 percent more likely to be alive. But if you focus only on women who went to school and didn't even learn to read—i.e., women seemingly failed by bad schools—they still had about 0.25 fewer children and their kids were still about 2 percent more likely to be alive.
To be clear, these are nothing more than correlations. You can think of lots of reasons more schooling might be correlated with lower child mortality absent any causal mechanism. But there's growing evidence to suggest the return to schooling is indeed causal, based on natural experiments and policy reforms in places where enrollment has expanded in systems that produce fairly dire learning outcomes.
So maybe pouring more money into business-as-usual and low quality education isn't such a bad investment after all.
Counterfactuals: if we spend more on education, what do we give up?
Fine, perhaps the world needs more bad schools. The world needs lots of things. Is bad education a better bet than, say, HIV drugs or famine relief?
The most intriguing part of Gordon Brown and co.'s pitch is the claim that they can create "new money." The plan is a bit of financial engineering to stretch aid dollars further:
Start with a couple billion dollars of good old-fashioned aid money
Add a couple billion more dollars of loan guarantees from rich countries to Brown's new IFFed fund.
Use that money as collateral to borrow on international capital markets at low rates, thanks to the backing from major donor countries.
Re-lend to poor countries so long as they promise to spend on education.
The basic idea, which is a good one, is to as rich countries unwilling to part with much cash during an age of austerity, to lend their credit rating instead. The problem is, it's not an idea unique to education advocates.
Recently, my colleagues Nancy Birdsall and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala proposed a new, "Big Bond for Africa" in which rich countries would use their aid budgets to borrow at low rates and lend onward to African countries on concessional terms to pursue whatever development needs they want to prioritize—education or other. And my colleague Michele de Nevers and colleagues, including the former treasurer of the World Bank, Kenneth Lay, have proposed a Tropical Forest Finance Facility (TFFF) that would borrow from rich countries to create essentially a large endowment whose returns would fund forest conservation. There's no escaping the fact these are rival initiatives.
As that old bumper sticker used to say: "It'll be a great day when the schools have all the money they need, and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber." If the Trump administration is seriously weighing a new MOAB bomb versus a global fund for education, I'm all for the latter. Sadly, that's not the actual trade-off faced in foreign aid spending conversations in the era of Trump and Brexit.
When aid budgets are tight, advocating for one specific sector like education isn't a question of generosity or a moral crusade, it's essentially just a zero-sum game of earmarking a fixed budget. If that's the game we're playing, education advocates can't duck the conversation about how to generate the biggest learning gains at the lowest cost.
But they will still try. As moderator, my colleague Amanda Glassman opened last week's event with a brief statement about the need for improved efficiency and quality in global education. The panel was unimpressed. When her turn came to comment, Julia Gillard of GPE confessed, "while you were giving your speech about efficiency, Gordon leaned over to me and whispered, 'Yes, but we need more money too.'"
This blog post has been updated to include a correction. The International Commission on Financing Education is led by the UN’s special envoy for education, but it is not a UN commission, as originally stated.
This annual report marks two milestones in 2016: CGD’s 15th anniversary and, at the end of the year, its first leadership transition, with founding president Nancy Birdsall being succeeded by Masood Ahmed. In this first era, the Center has established itself as an influential voice in international development policy, with a unique model of nonpartisan policy innovation.
Building on the momentum of last year’s report of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity, chaired by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and the launch of the Education Cannot Wait Fund, incubated at UNICEF, to address learning needs in humanitarian emergencies, this event discusses how current investment can be leveraged and increased to ensure that every child can access their right to a quality education.