Art BL 2012-05-10 Slate Education.pdf - Bjorn Lomborg

lomborg.com

Art BL 2012-05-10 Slate Education.pdf - Bjorn Lomborg

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/copenhagen_consensus_2012/2012/05/copenhagen_consensus_three_strategies_for_fixing_education_in_the_developing_world_.html

Copenhagen Consensus: Three strategies for fixing education in the developing world.

By Bjørn Lomborg | Posted Thursday, May 10, 2012, at 2:06 PM ET

| Posted Thursday, May 10, 2012, at 2:06 PM ET Slate.com

To Educate Children, We Have To Teach Their Parents

We can improve education in poor countries by showing parents the importance of schooling.

Nobel laureates are

considering three strategies

to improve education in the

developing world. Here, a

government school in

India.

Kuni Takahashi/Getty

Images.

In this series, Bjorn

Lomborg explores the

smartest investments to

respond to global

challenges—and readers

get to have their say. See

the earlier articles here. Be

sure to vote in the poll at

the bottom of each article.

On Monday, Bjorn

Lomborg will present the Slate reader results, showing which priorities you think are most urgent for policymakers

and philanthropists. And he will reveal the findings of a panel of Nobel laureate economists that has also been

considering the research.

Over the past 50 years, remarkable progress has been made ensuring that children receive basic education. More than

60 percent of adults in low-income countries can read and write, whereas in 1962, just one-third were literate. Today,

nearly nine in 10 children around the world complete primary school.

However, in education—as in other developmental challenges—progress is uneven. Across sub-Saharan Africa,

nearly one-quarter of primary aged children are not in school. In Equatorial Guinea, 46 percent of children are not

being educated. In South Asia, progress has generally been impressive, but 34 percent of Pakistan’s primary aged

children are not in school. The worst educational outcomes occur in the nations that rank among the most poorly

governed.

Copenhagen Consensus 2012 is a far-reaching project that asks expert economists to explore ways to improve the

world’s biggest challenges. In this series we have taken a look at economists’ research papers that highlight ways to

achieve the biggest gains most effectively.

In a research paper on education released today, Peter Orazem highlights the different ways that decision-makers

could approach the challenge of providing education in developing countries.

Most children in developing countries are now already enrolled in school for at least some period, so Peter Orazem

points out that we could focus on strategies that improve school quality, either by enhancing the learning that is

occurring in school or increasing the number of years of schooling.

Unfortunately, there is very weak knowledge about which inputs actually generate quality schooling outcomes, and

many investments are unlikely to generate the desired effects. There is widespread acknowledgement that resources

Page 1 of 3

11/05/2012 02:40 AM


http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/copenhagen_consensus_2012/2012/05/copenhagen_consensus_three_strategies_for_fixing_education_in_the_developing_world_.html

are used inefficiently, but for instance efforts to improve resource management by devolving authority to local

jurisdictions are as likely to fail as succeed.

Thus, Peter Orazem considers three strategies that seem to offer the best evidence of success to date: nutrition

supplements, offering information on returns to schooling, and conditional cash transfers for school attendance. All

have been shown to succeed with benefits that exceed the costs.

It may seem surprising to focus on nutrition to achieve better schooling, but malnourished children learn poorly.

Insuring proper nutrition when brain development is occurring makes a significant difference. The benefits are not

just educational but also increase health and a child’s physical abilities (we saw investment in deworming

recommended in the Copenhagen Consensus research on chronic disease, and nutritional interventions promoted in

the paper on hunger.) Provision of nutrient supplements and anti-parasitic medicines is very inexpensive: In Kenya

the cost of deworming a child can be as low as $3.50, with benefits 20 to 50 times higher.

Increasing the years a child spends in school simply by providing accurate information to kids and parents on the

returns of educationschooling is another promising and relatively inexpensive intervention.

Many kids and parents, especially in rural areas, are simply unaware of the long-term benefits that may come from a

better education. In Madagascar, for instance, providing children and their parents with accurate information on the

value of schooling has been achieved at a cost of $2.30 per child, resulting in total benefits of possibly 600 times the

cost.

Although the costs vary across countries, such an intervention could conceivably be built into the standard

curriculum at relatively low cost and has the potential of increasing academic effort while in school as well as

increasing years of schooling. However, because of the very few studies, the benefits from a large-scale information

campaign are less certain.

Finally, Orazem argues that the most consistent evidence of success in recent years comes from making payments to

underprivileged parents conditional on their children attending school.

These programs—known as conditional cash transfers— have consistently increased child attendance, even when the

transfer is modest. Administrative costs have been lower than those of other social interventions. In addition to

positive schooling outcomes, these transfers have lowered the poverty rate, improved the nutritional status of poor

households, and have increased the proportion of children receiving vaccinations and other health services. While

there is great variance in performance, a dollar spent on such programs on average produces benefits of about $9.

Because the programs increase the intensity of child investment in school as well as child time in school, they help to

break the cycle of poverty whereby poor parents underinvest in their children’s schooling and doom their children to

poverty.

By increasing child attendance, Orazem argues, we should even see an increase in teacher attendance, which will

increase the quality of schooling offered to the poorest children.

Yet, cash-transfers programs are much more expensive than nutrition or health interventions. That might explain

why cash transfer programs are concentrated in wealthier countries while nutrition programs typically focus on the

poorest countries.

In general, the climate for all of these interventions is worse where the positive returns are depressed by poor

government institutions. Therefore, the best places to try these interventions are countries that protect individual

economic and political freedoms. Of course, those countries would also have the better capacity to implement an

intervention, whether distributing medication, transfer payments, or information on the benefits of investing in

schooling.

What priority would you like policymakers and philanthropists to give these educational investments Have your say

in today’s poll:

Page 2 of 3

11/05/2012 02:40 AM


http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/copenhagen_consensus_2012/2012/05/copenhagen_consensus_three_strategies_for_fixing_education_in_the_developing_world_.html

While Slate readers have been having their say each day, a panel of Nobel laureate-level economists has been

considering the research findings. After many months of reading different drafts of research papers, this panel has

met to interview the researchers over the past few days.

On Monday, I’ll report on their conclusions—and, I’ll also present the final findings of Slate readers and respond to

your comments and questions. Remember, there is a poll in each of the stories published to date, and until Monday

you can go back and vote in all of the polls to have your say about what politicians and philanthropists should

prioritize.

In this series, Bjorn Lomborg explores the smartest investments to respond to global challenges—and readers get to

have their say. See the earlier articles here. Be sure to vote in the poll at the bottom of each article. On Monday,

Bjorn Lomborg will present the Slate reader results, showing which priorities you think are most urgent for

policy-makers and philanthropists. And he will reveal the findings of a panel of Nobel laureate economists that has

also been considering the research.

MySlate is a new tool that you track your favorite parts Slate. You can follow authors and sections,

track comment threads you're interested in, and more.

Page 3 of 3

11/05/2012 02:40 AM

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines