Reaching the marginalized: EFA global monitoring report, 2010; 2010

REACHING THE MARGINALIZEDLevelling the playing fieldis on quality: kindergartens have one teacher forevery four children. But scale is also expanding rapidly.From twenty-four blocks in 1997, by 2007 the HarlemChildren’s Zone Project had expanded to ninety-sevenblocks with 7,400 children.Education is one of the core elements. In 2004, threeschools dubbed ‘Promise Academies’ were opened withfunding from government, philanthropists and charities.Many of the children come from highly marginalizedbackgrounds: 10% live in homeless shelters or fostercare. Management of the schools is geared towardsthe pupils’ need for intensive support. The learningenvironment includes an extended school day,after-school teaching and remedial classes atweekends. Efforts have been made to recruit andretain high-quality teachers. The schools providemeals and medical care (many students come fromhouseholds without health insurance).Early results have been very promising. Researchersfrom Harvard University found that students whoenrolled in the sixth grade gained more than a fullstandard deviation in math, and between one-thirdand one-half of a standard deviation in EnglishLanguage Arts (ELA), by eighth grade: ‘Taken at facevalue, these effects are enough to reverse the blackwhiteachievement gap in mathematics (HCZ studentsprimary education by 2015 requires action atmany levels. In most countries in danger of missingthat goal, improving opportunities in educationmeans lowering cost barriers and bringing schoolscloser to marginalized children.Cutting the costs of entry to schoolMany countries have laws or constitutionsenshrining the right to free primary education. Yetchildren often are excluded from education becausetheir parents cannot afford informal school fees.A 2005 survey by the World Bank covering ninetythreecountries found that only sixteen chargedno fees at all, even though the vast majority madefree education nominally available (World Bank andUNICEF, 2009). In reality, free primary schoolingremains the exception rather than the rule.Recent experience powerfully demonstrates thedamaging effects of charges on primary educationfor equity. Countries eliminating user fees forprimary education have typically seen largeincreases in enrolment, especially amongdisadvantaged groups (Plank, 2007). Even inoutperform the typical white student in New YorkCity and the difference is statistically significant)and reduce it in ELA. Students in the HCZ elementaryschool gain approximately one and three-quartersof a standard deviation in both math and ELA,closing the racial achievement gap in both subjects’(Dobbie and Fryer, 2009, p. 3).Can the project’s achievements be replicated ona national scale? The Obama administration hasoutlined plans to reproduce it in twenty cities undera programme of ‘Promise Neighborhoods.’ Rollingout such an initiative will require more than copyinga ready-made blueprint. The high level of communitymobilization and the innovation demonstrated bycommunity leaders over many years cannot bereadily duplicated. Moreover, expansion to poorneighbourhoods across America will require large-scalepublic investment during a period of acute budgetaryconstraints. But the prize of building on theaccomplishment of the Harlem Children’s Zone Projectis potentially enormous. The costs of narrowingthe deep divides in American education have tobe assessed against the wider social, political andeconomic costs of allowing marginalization to diminishthe potential of the country’s children.Sources: Dobbie and Fryer (2009); Harlem Children’s Zone(2007, n.d.); Shulman (2009).countries that have moved to eliminate formalcharges, however, cost may remain a barrier,with many poor parents continuing to cite inabilityto afford education as the reason their childrendo not attend. Why has the move to ‘free’ educationfailed to remove this cost barrier for the parentsof many marginalized children?Local school-financing practices have sometimescounteracted national policies. When Ghanaintroduced a policy eliminating fees in 1996, therewas initially only a limited increase in enrolment.The reason: schools faced with a loss of revenueintroduced informal fees of their own. In response,the government introduced school grants to makeup for the lost fee income – a policy interventionthat led to rising enrolment levels (Maikish andGershberg, 2008). Several other countries, includingEthiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, replaced schools’ formeruser-fee revenue with grants. In addition toreducing pressure on household budgets, schoolgrants give governments a vehicle for targetingdisadvantaged groups and regions, for example‘I have spentdays withouthaving a full mealbut never letFaruk think aboutleaving school.’Faruk’s mother,Bangladesh189