What lies behind the increasing focus on data and evidence in discussions about the “learning crisis in education[i]” – and isn’t it a distraction from actually addressing the crisis itself ? Why too is this focus on data not always shared by ministries of education ?
The question of how to respond to this crisis is often framed (usually by “global northerners”) in very a-historical and sometimes pseudo-scientific ways : “We don’t know what works”, “We need more evidence on how learning takes place”, “we need better measurement tools”. Initiatives like the multi-donor supported Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (GEEAP), GPE KIX (budget $75m) or the recently announced FCDO funded What Works Hub (budget £55m) together with numerous other research hubs and grants attest to a growing investment in data and evidence generation.
As if we didn’t have centuries of worldwide education development to draw on and countless examples of education systems that grew from specialised tutoring for the elite to mass education systems achieving near universal levels of literacy and numeracy[ii]. Yet, most of the current research discussion is focused on the mechanics of achieving literacy / numeracy outcomes, not on what makes education systems work for those outcomes.
The “learning crisis” is not just a country level issue – it is framed as a global issue spanning multiple country education systems. But, the heavy emphasis from many of the major multilateral and bilateral agencies active in this area, on evidence generation and use as a tool to address the crisis is tending to frame the solutions in terms of knowledge more than action.
Some will bristle at that characterisation and argue, rightly, that the purpose of research and evidence is to enlighten and inform action, to stimulate it, to provide the arguments Ministers of Education and their officials need to convince Treasuries to better fund education and to make changes that have real impacts on learning outcomes.
But, there is a large gap between that theory and actual practice. Support to research that is intended to influence policy and practice is usually expressed in hopeful rather than confident terms alongside sometimes precious attitudes to what constitutes good quality research. Often overlooked is the uncomfortable reality that, whether research is taken seriously or acted on, is usually linked to individual personalities and the political calculations of those with power – a very changeable tableau – as well as how simply research is communicated to those with power – something many researchers find difficult.
Conveniently, failure is left firmly at the door of recipient governments who do not act on the available evidence. Why then is there not a greater focus, and greater funding for, action rather than evidence generation ?
Where’s the Motivation ?
Firstly, bilateral agencies – who are usually interested in genuine system change and willing to use their funds to influence behaviour change – are working on unfeasibly short timeframes, typically 4-5 years in settings where change happens in long cycles – often 10-20 year timeframes. A glance at the history of any education system shows that significant change takes decades – why then do we expect 5-year projects to do anything more than scratch the surface of change ?
Consequently, ambitions are curbed – because governments, bilaterals and implementers spending public money have a low tolerance for failure. Bilaterals also need niches ; their budgets are too limited to address the totality of the crisis. For example, the budget for education in FCDO has dropped more than 30% (to less than £500m) since 2018 and the Gates Foundation budget for education in 2022 was only $25m[iii]. Focusing on research across multiple countries can compensate for the lack of funds that might have gone into implementation. Multilateral agencies, who can work to longer timeframes with larger budgets, and so could be more ambitious, are fundamentally driven by the need to disburse funds, are usually loaning money not granting, so allow for limited technical support alongside the loan, and consequently have less appetite, leverage or voices in the room to advocate for real change.
Secondly, government action and change is primarily driven by political considerations ; the politics of pleasing donors is usually secondary to the concerns of national politics. A 2021 report published by the Centre for Global Development (CGD) found that (of a sample of 900 education “officials” from 25 LICs) policymakers consistently preferred investment in vocational education before foundational learning, consistently overestimated the extent of foundational skills in their own country and paid almost no attention to RCTs, being instead more impressed by sample size and relevance (e.g. if the research was in a similar country)[iv]. It’s not enough then to exhort countries to invest in literacy and numeracy on the basis of robust evidence – failure to understand and engage with the influence of national politics and priorities on education systems and its place in a wider development space can lead to either misaligned initiatives or wasted funding.
Thirdly, the increased emphasis on evidence creation and application among donors reflects a fundamental lack of confidence within the education sector about persuading budget holders (within donors and recipient governments) of the value of education. Not lack of confidence in education as a public good per se, but rather in hard hitting, return-on-investment terms, in ways that influence the allocations to donor budgets and the expenditures of ministries of education.
The returns to education, both personal and social, have been known for decades[v]; there are numerous examples of countries investing in education to accelerate growth in their economies (Asian Tigers, Rwanda, Kenya etc.). But, education often feels like a Cinderella to the Health sector’s ball ; working hard in the background but getting none of the glory from “obvious” and easily explainable short term benefits like vaccinations or bed nets. Hence the emphasis on a GEEAP or a KIX, bodies that exists to produce robust evidence demonstrating the value for money of specific education initiatives to donors / Ministries of Education – persuading them to invest or to “buy” the right reforms to their education systems.
Which brings us back to asking how does this focus on evidence generation square with the rhetoric of a “learning crisis”. Is this focus helping or distracting from the urgent task at hand ?
Crisis ? What Kind of Crisis?
We have to ask – what crisis is best addressed by support that can be blown off course by a change in donor governments or institutional priorities at the whim of short political cycles (think US or UK elections for example) ? What crisis can truly be addressed if the national agencies who are in charge of addressing it do not see the political benefits of doing so ? And what crisis is going to be realistically mitigated or solved by increased evidence generation ? In all this where is the urgency to actually turn around education systems that are failing now, for this generation of children ?
The reality is that the learning crisis is at heart a socio-political and financial crisis not a technical one – the solutions lie in social, political and fiscal choices not the finer points of how children learn to read and count. There are some deceptively simple technical solutions and some exceptionally difficult political ones. At a macro, system, level we know what works in education : good leadership (at all levels of the system) ; adequate system funding ; well trained and performing teachers ; engaged pupils. Where there is a learning crisis, one or more of these aspects is missing or sub-par, often all at the same time.
What is needed to really address the learning crisis is targeted, comprehensive and coherent support to education systems most in need – including how they work within their political contexts.
What does that look like ?
Firstly, it looks a lot more political and a lot less educational than it does now. Secondly, it looks a lot more finance focused. Thirdly, it looks much more consultative and collaborative. Let’s take each of those in turn.
An Alternative Focus
Politics : any answer to the learning crisis must address the history and context of why countries find themselves in a learning crisis. What are the political drivers that have allowed a mass expansion of education systems without sufficient parallel investment in the structures and people that produce quality education ? From that start a future path leading to national aspirations can be drawn. Without that vision – publicly articulated and supported by those with power – meaningful systemic change is not possible. Examples, of where this has been accomplished (none perfect, but illustrative) might include Rwanda, Ghana, Sierra Leone or Vietnam.
So far, so vanilla. But, the complexity lies in what we might term the “Dercon Dilemma”[vi] Namely, that if the “elite bargain” that governs a country is not aligned with (in this case Education) development needs, no amount of historical understanding and vision building is likely to change that dynamic especially in fragile situations ; witness South Sudan or Somalia. There are no simple answers – but, as Dercon proposes, recognising the “messiness” and inconsistency of aid probably means heavily supporting countries where champions and those who genuinely want to reform can lead by example, while lower-level support, not abandonment, is provided to those countries where the necessary conditions for change are not aligned.
This also recognises the timescales that change of this nature operates to and the windows of opportunity that may be closed under one political regime, and after a change of government or personnel may suddenly start to open. It also recognises the accumulative impact of change happening in neighbouring countries or countries held as models. Essentially, this is what happened with the move to free UPE – countries that moved first got greater levels of support, others went at their own pace, some for domestic political and financial reasons, but the laggards experienced greater social and political pressure to act over time.
Finance. A lot more work by governments and donors who support them needs to be focused on the long-term financing of education. That means much more engagement and discussion with Ministries of Finance as part of support to education programmes and much greater willingness by donors to temporarily fund parts of fragile education systems as part of a package of support to reform them (think stipends for girls, teacher salary support etc.). Donors are notoriously shy to give cash due to fears about leakage and wastage – but there are ways to manage and mitigate those risks.
This also means engaging and supporting governments with their tax policies – raising taxes, and allocating more to fund education. A recent blog by David Archer of Action Aid highlighted that “25 countries are spending more on servicing their debt than they are on education” [vii]. Focusing attention on the private or philanthropic sectors to plug gaps, or experimenting with Payment by Results (PBR) outcomes based schemes, are just sticking plasters. The learning crisis may be mitigated by some of these initiatives, but cannot be fully addressed by them. Increasing government allocations to education and spending the money better is the only long-term solution to the funding crisis.
Consultation and Collaboration. The learning crisis must bring social forces and political forces together – it cannot be solved by governments alone. Bringing bottom-up and top-down approaches together means national and sub-national government engaging meaningfully with civil society organisations at the grass roots level and especially awakening the sleeping giant that is parental support and engagement. So much of the impetus for literacy and numeracy, and the continuous support needed to embed it, can be provided by parents working with schools.
A fire is rarely brought under control if the firefighters are squabbling with each other. Collaboration between donors to support country education systems through pooled funds or functioning donor education committees that provide governments with a single source of donor engagement is essential to achieve focus. There are good examples of this – but many bad ones too. Donors need to put their own houses in order before decrying the lack of recipient government action – for some that means taking a back seat and avoiding pet projects and special sub-sectors. For others it means not rotating advisers out of countries and sectors the minute they have achieved a level of understanding and competence.
But, collaboration is also needed between actors implementing on behalf of governments and donors. Competitive tendering reduces the incentives of implementers (NGOs / private sector firms) to collaborate, and excessive transfer of risk to implementers has led to timidity and insularity in technical approaches as well as excluding local firms from anything other than subsidiary roles. A new approach, where passing a competitive gate satisfies the donor VFM watchdogs, but then leads to more collaborative and cross sectoral approaches to technical and political support, and larger roles for local actors across longer timeframes, could be much more effective.
Are these prescriptions realistic – or just an idealistic wish list ? Maybe both, some will say neither. But, even starting to frame the agenda on the learning crisis as one about political, social and financial choices rather than one of research and generating technical evidence would shift the focus more to the crisis as a crisis.
But, that shift would also have a sting in the tail. Framing something as a crisis carries risk. If no discernible change is observed within a reasonable period it ceases to justify being called a crisis. The Learning Crisis has definitely entered that territory and, like Matilda crying “Fire !” in the famous Hillaire Belloc poem[viii], credibility is dwindling fast. A much greater focus on action, at a much greater scale, is needed to show progress.
Taking Care of the Crisis
President Obama was recently interviewed for advice he would give to young people setting out on a career in public service. His advice was pertinent :
“Just learn how to get stuff done. What I mean by that is I’ve seen at every level people who are very good at describing problems, people who are very sophisticated at explaining why something went wrong or why something can’t get fixed. But, what I’m always looking for is, no matter how small the problem or big it is, somebody who says, ‘Let me take care of that.’
If we’re going to take care of the learning crisis we need to focus much more urgently and strongly on supporting action by governments and their local communities. We need much greater attention on how to harness the political, social and financial drivers to make change happen. We need to get stuff done.
Andy Brock (formerly of Cambridge Education) : November 2023
See my Substack newsletter “Re Education” here : https://open.substack.com/pub/abrock/p/re-education?r=2n2xtw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
[i] World Bank 2022 The State of Global Learning Poverty : 2022 Update “…70% of 10-year-olds unable to understand a simple written text.”
[ii] For an excellent summary of how mass literacy has developed in many countries see the essay by McLean H “The Gound Beneath Our Feet” in “The Pathway to Progress on SDG 4 : A Symposium p 58-59”
[iii] Annual Report 2022 | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
[iv] “Understanding Education Policy Preferences: Survey Experiments with Policymakers in 35 Developing Countries” The Centre for Global Development (CGD), 2021. Lee Crawfurd, Susannah Hares, Ana Minardi, Justin Sandefur
[v] See also Gethin A, 2023 “Distributional Growth Accounting: Education and the Reduction of Global Poverty, 1980-2022” demonstrating the significant contribution of education to economic growth especially for the poor
[vi] My phrasing but inspiration from “Gambling on Development” Stephan Dercon, 2022
[vii] David Archer, 14th September 2023 : Breaking out of the bubble to transform education financing – World Education Blog (world-education-blog.org)
[viii] “Matilda Who Told Lies and was Burned to Death” Hillaire Belloc
Brocksblog 