The document presents cost-benefit analyses of two interventions to improve learning levels in Ghanaian basic schools: (1) Expanding Ghana's School Feeding Program and (2) Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL), a pedagogical approach. For school feeding expansion, the benefit-cost ratio is 4.8, with benefits including increased lifetime income. For TaRL, targeting instruction to all students has a higher BCR of 8.3 than targeting weaker students (BCR of 6.0), but the latter benefits more vulnerable groups. Both interventions show sizeable returns relative to costs from improving test scores and future earnings.

1. EminentPanelConference,Accra,August7th -9th,2020
Education
Ebo Turkson*, Priscilla Twumasi Baffour* and Copenhagen Consensus
*Department of Economics, University of Ghana

2. Interventions to improve learning in basic
education
Ebo Turkson, Priscilla Twumasi-Baffour and Copenhagen
Consensus

3. Why Improve learning in Basic schools in Ghana?
•Massive strides in education enrolment
- Almost achieved UPS enrollment and gender equality (World Bank, 2019)
• Quality of education/ extent to which children actually learn remains the
critical challenge – (Source MOE, 2016)
- 4th graders inability to meet minimum standards in Math (45%) and English (30%)
• We present the CBA of 2 interventions designed to improve learning levels in
Ghanaian schools with rigorous evidence of impacts, namely:
- Expansion of Ghana’s School Feeding Program (GSFP)- provision of one hot meal
to students in public basic school (grades 1 to grade 9) and;
- ‘Teaching at the Right Level’ (TaRL), a pedagogical approach that more closely
directs instruction to the learning needs of children.

4. Overview of interventions
Intervention details
• School feeding (BCR = 4.8)
- Provides one hot meal for each child in basic school
- Started in 2005 with 10 schools; expanded to cover 2.8 million children
- Government plans to increase coverage from 61% -> 70% (approximately
383,000 children more (Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection,
2019)
• Teaching at the right level (BCR = 6-8)
- Pedagogical approach that tailors instruction to learning levels of children
(rather than age)
- Currently being piloted in Ghana but no large scale rollout
- Strong evidence globally for being cost-effective

5. School Feeding Programme

6. Expanding School Feeding for 383,000 students BCR = 4.8
• Based on school feeding of 383,000 basic school children over two years using
the average IIT effects from Aurino et al. (2018) and Gelli et al. (2019).
• Costs
Direct Costs
Cost of Feeding per pupil = Cost of feeding (inflation adjusted) @ GHS1.1 per child per day
X 200 school days X 383,000 = GHS80m annually (GHS 160m for 2 years, undiscounted)
Indirect Costs
- Each pupil spent 22 extra minutes in school per day (Aurino et al. 2018)
45 cedi opportunity cost of time (for 11-13 year olds only)- based in implied wages of GHS5.119
- the extra daily instruction time for teachers is 1.1 hours per day (Aurino et al. 2018)
11 cedi cost of teacher time per student (based on GHs800 salary per month)
Total Indirect Cost = [(GHS45 + GHS11) X 383,000] X 2years =GHS44m
OVERALL COST = GHS160m + GHS44m = GHS204m

7. Expanding School Feeding for 383,000 students BCR = 4.8
Benefits
• Boost to Income due to School feeding = 2.7% across lifetime = GHS2,300 per pupil
- Based on 1 s.d. increase in test scores = 17.8% increase in wages in Ghana (Evans and Yuan,
2017 and given an increased learning by 0.154 s.d. after 2 years
- Beneficiary group is 9 cohorts of pupils from ages 5-13yrs and assuming they will work from
ages 15-60 years (Ghana priorities standardized assumption)
- Mincerian Analyses of GLSS 7 data GHS5120 (5-10); GHS5,333(11); GHS5,555(12) ; GHS5,786(13)
• Transfer value in food and cash in absence of school feeding= GHS32m per year
- 16 pesewas (average) given to children to buy food at school each day (2018) = GHS12m
- One meal saved at home (assuming its valued at 1.5X of meal in school)= GHS20m
• Total benefit = Productivity Benefit (Income Boost) + Transfer Benefit

8. Benefit-Cost ratio- GSFP
• Table 1: Summary of costs and benefits for two years
of school feeding for 383,000 additional students • The results indicate that at an 8%
discount rate, the BCR is 4.8.
• Our BCR estimate is higher than
Dunaev and Corona (2018) who found
a BCR of 3.3 (7% discount rate)
• They include 8 years of school feeding
to generate the benefits whereas we
consider only 2 years
• Other differences emanate from
valuations of transfer and health
benefits and ROI

9. • How much of the total benefit accrues
to sub-groups relative to what would be
expected if effects were homogenous?
• We assume girls make up 50% of basic
school enrolments, while poor make up
8% of enrolments (GLSS 7)
• Assume that girls (the poor) will earn
25% (50%) less than the average wage as
per Mincerian analyses
• For both sub-groups, higher effects are
recorded
Table 2: Actual versus expected share of
benefits accruing to vulnerable sub-groups
Cost-benefit analysis (Sensitivity analysis)-GSFP

10. Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)

11. Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)
• TaRL is a pedagogical approach developed/refined Pratham (NGO)
- sorts primary pupils into learning levels rather than age groups to provide
specifically targeted instruction that meet pupils’ educational needs.
- It generally requires only 1-2 hours per day, aside regular curriculum teaching.
• This cost-benefit analysis envisages a large-scale rollout of TaRL to public
school children in grades 1 to 3.
• We test two variants of the TaRL approach – one targeted to the weakest
students, the other targeted to all children.
- The scale of each intervention is set based on how many could be reached using
the same amount of government funds required for the equivalent years of school
feeding for 383,000 students.

12. Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)
• We draw from a 2010-2013 TaRL evaluation conducted in Ghana across
25,000 students (Duflo & Kiessel, 2014). We discuss 2 of their 4 approaches
1. Targeted instruction for two hours per day to children in grades 1-3 with the
lowest learning levels and with the help of TCAs
- This variant improved test scores by 0.142 s.d. and would cost USD 20.24 per child per year
(2011 figures) if rolled out at scale
2. Targeted instruction to all children in grades 1-3 with civil-service teachers
delivering the method after some training
- The intervention improved test scores by a more modest 0.08 s.d. but also would cost 40%
less at scale, USD 12.61 per child per year (2011 figures).
• Implementation challenges:
- non-payment of TCAs led to reduced TCA attendance
- teacher absenteeism and splitting of classes on 15% of days.
• The learning gains were significant.

13. Cost-benefit analysis
• Costs:
- We adopt 2018 GHS 105 per child per year (Duflo and Kiessler (2014)) for the TCA +
teacher intervention targeted at the weakest student.
- TCAs receive the minimum wage (GHS 10.65 per day) for 70% of the full school year or
140 days annually.
- Duflo and Kiessel (2015) note that the effects of interventions are from 2 year
program rollout. So we add 2 years of TCA salary costs to the GHS 103 figure reported
by Duflo and Kiessel (2014).
• Variant 1 (weaker pupils): The total cost for 2 years of TaRL per child is GHS309
• Variant 2 (universal): GHS130 per child for 2 years for the teacher only intervention

14. Cost-benefit analysis
• Benefits
• A 1 s.d. increase in test scores is associated with a 17.8% increase in wages in
Ghana (Evans and Yuan, 2017).
- We apply this to the impacts of the two intervention variants (0.14s.d. and 0.08 s.d.),
implying 2.6% and 1.5% increase in wages over the lifetime.
- Assume a primary school wage of GHS 5,120 which rises with projected income growth.
This leads to a lifetime benefit of GHS 1,755 per student for the TCA + teacher led
intervention and GHS 1,037 for the teacher only intervention (8% discount rate).

15. Benefit-Cost ratio- TaRL
• Table 3: Summary of costs and benefits per child and
at scale for the two TaRL
• Both variations of TaRL have
sizeable returns relative to
costs, i.e., bigger BCR
• Equity-efficiency tradeoff
- Variant 2 has a higher BCR as well
as larger net benefits.
- Variant 1 is less efficient with
higher per child benefit for weaker
students who may also suffer from
other social disadvantages such as
poverty
• We assess the quality of
evidence for variant 1 as
medium, and for variant 2 as
strong.

16. Universal TARL reaches more children but has a lower impact
per child Policy implications
• Universal TARL is the most effective way to
boost learning levels from BCR
• cheaper and can reach more students
• However, the benefits per child are
lower for universal TARL
• School feeding and TaRL focusing on weaker
students are equity enhancing driving more
benefits to vulnerable members of society
• Focusing on the universal TaRL rather than
equity enhancing interventions leaves GHS
200m in social benefits ‘on-the-table’ per
year. It is up to Ghanaian policy makers to
determine if this equity-efficiency tradeoff is
worth it
383,000
520,000
1,200,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
School feeding TARL focusing on weaker
students using teachers
and assistants
TARL focusing on all
students using teachers
Students reached annually with GHS 80m government funds
2.7% 2.6%
1.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
School feeding TARL focusing on weaker
students using teachers
and assistants
TARL focusing on all
students using teachers
Increase in lifetime earnings associated with intervention

17. SUMMARY BCR TABLE
INTERVENTION BENEFITS COSTS BCR
Expansion of school feeding to
383,000 students
526 110 4.8
Teaching at the right level for
50% of students, using existing
teachers
717 87 8.3
Teaching at the right level for
520,000 students with lower
learning levels, using teacher
community assistants
518 87 6.0

18. References
1. Aurino E, A Gelli, C Adamba, I Osei-Akoto, H Alderman (2018). Food for
thought? Experimental evidence on the learning impacts of a large-scale
school feeding program in Ghana, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01782.
2. Duflo A, J Kiessel (2014). Cost-effectiveness report: The Teacher
Community Assistant Initiative (TCAI),Innovations for Poverty Action brief.
3. Dunaev A, F Corona, 2018, School Feeding in Ghana. Investment Case:
Cost-benefit analysis report, World Food Programme.
4. Evans D and F Yuan, 2017, The economic returns to interventions that
increase learning, World Bank working paper, available at:
https://riseprogramme.org/sites/www.riseprogramme.org/files/inlinefile
s/Evans%20Returns%20to%20Learning%20-%20v2017-06-
09%20CLEAN.pdf

19. References
5. Gelli A, E Aurino, G. Folson, D. Arhinful, C. Adamba, I. Osei-Akoto, E. Masset, K.
Watkins, M. Fernandes, L. Drake, H. Alderman (2019). A school meals program
implemented at scale in Ghana increases height-for-age during midchildhood in
Girls and in children from poor households: A cluster randomized trial, Journal of
Nutrition, 149 (8)
6. Ministry of Education (2016). Ghana 2016 National Education Assessment Report
of Findings, available at:
https://www.globalreadingnetwork.net/sites/default/files/eddata/2016%20NEA
%20Findings%20Report17Nov2016_Public%20FINAL.PDF
7. Ministry of Education (2018). Education Sector Analysis, Ghana 2018.
8. Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (2019). Dissemination of cost
benefit analysis on Ghana school feeding programme, available at:
http://mogcsp.gov.gh/index.php/dissemination-of-cost-benefit-analysison-
ghana-school-feeding-programme/ (accessed 5 Dec. 19)

20. References
9. World Bank (2019). World Bank Open data available at
https://data.worldbank.org/ accessed 28 October 2019

21. END
Questions & Answers