Education has emerged as one of the most consequential casualties of the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to UNESCO estimates, about 1.6 billion students across more than 190 nations were forced out of school at the peak of the crisis.
In higher-income nations, school closures have disproportionately harmed students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, raising concerns about the long-term implications for learning and earnings inequality.
There is a visible and widening gap between students with educated parents, and access to computers and the Internet, and those lacking such resources, but the picture is even bleaker in low-income settings.
The World Bank in 2019 estimated that 53 percent of children finishing primary school in low and middle-income nations (and as much as 80 percent in some low-income nations) still could not read and understand a simple text. In light of these findings, the bank introduced a new concept — “learning poverty.”
Along the same lines, the 2018 World Development Report found that in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, three-quarters of third-grade students could not read a basic sentence such as: “The name of the dog is Puppy.” In rural India, three-quarters of third-grade students could not solve a two-digit subtraction problem such as: 46 minus 17.
Worse, these learning deficits seem to persist, despite impressive growth in average years of schooling in the past two decades, and despite higher enrollments in primary and secondary education in most nations.
Simply put, more schooling has not translated into more learning and this divergence has become so large in some settings as to invite warnings of a global “learning crisis.”
As my coauthors and I showed in a recent study, this alarming pattern is not confined to a handful of poor nations; it is typical of many middle and low-income nations. Similarly, a study by the Center for Global Development documents learning differences between high and low-income nations that are much larger than differences in years of schooling would predict.
The middle of a pandemic might seem like an inopportune time to tackle a learning crisis, especially in nations lacking fiscal resources, but the long-term costs of the education gap are too large to ignore. So, what can be done?
A strategy for tackling the learning crisis must include two components.
First, policymakers in nations with low learning levels must be persuaded to place a high priority on education. This might seem obvious, but education’s crucial role in enabling economic growth and development is not always so apparent to those who control the resources. Governments often prioritize investments in physical infrastructure over investments in people.
Whereas roads and bridges yield fast, tangible returns, and often can help politicians get re-elected, the returns on education tend to materialize only over the long term — and usually after the government that spearheaded them is gone.
To address this problem of incentives, the World Bank’s Human Capital Project now computes a Human Capital Index for every nation, taking account of learning levels, health and other important factors.
The Human Capital Index lays bare the economic cost of inaction.
A score of 0.40, for example, indicates that a child born today will enter adulthood (age 18) only 40 percent as productive as a peer who receives a complete education and proper healthcare. By making this information public, the World Bank aims to encourage policymakers to take education (and health) seriously.
The index also serves as an important measurement and research function. Because tracking learning progress across nations requires a set of common metrics, the World Bank has built a database of “harmonized learning outcomes,” comprising data from 164 nations between 2000 and 2017. These measures are to be updated every two to three years as new learning metrics become available.
Again, in addition to guiding efforts to improve learning, the aim is to spur governments to do more, but even if governments in developing nations are committed to improving learning, how can they with the meager resources available to them, especially amid a pandemic?
This question is addressed by the second component of the strategy — a laser-like focus on cost-effectiveness.
Efficient public spending has always been important in low-income, resource-starved settings, but now that the pandemic has depleted fiscal reserves and dragged many people back into poverty, it is more critical than ever.
To help developing nations identify strategies that deliver the most for the least, the Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel, a new initiative spearheaded by the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the World Bank, provides an invaluable service.
Drawing on an extensive review of empirical evidence from multiple nations, the panel classifies educational interventions into three groups: “Great and good buys;” “Promising, but low evidence;” and “Bad buys.”
The panel’s first report shows that the most cost-effective way to improve learning is to provide information to parents and children on the benefits, costs and quality of education. Just as it is important for top-level policymakers to take education into their own hands, parents and students must believe in the importance of learning.
At the other extreme of “Bad buys,” outlays on new facilities, computers, laptops, tablets and other equipment yield disappointing results relative to their cost.
This is good news, because it means that progress is feasible without exorbitant expenditure.
A World Bank paper shows that the most cost-effective interventions deliver the equivalent of three additional years of high-quality schooling (comparable to the highest-performing education systems) for just US$100 per child.
The developing world was in the midst of a learning crisis before the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that the pandemic’s end is coming into view, it is imperative that all nations and international institutions maintain their commitment to developing our most important resource — people.
Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, a former World Bank Group chief economist and editor-in-chief of the American Economic Review, is Elihu Professor of Economics at Yale University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS