Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Servaas vd berg
Similar to Servaas vd berg (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Servaas vd berg
- 1. The primary school sector and the impact of the introduction of Grade R on learning outcomes Servaas van der Berg Research on Socio-economic Policy (ReSEP), Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch Presentation to Allan Gray Orbis Foundation Selection Summit, Bertha Centre, UCT Graduate School of Business 29 September 2015
- 2. South Africa has made great progress in getting children to school, and keeping them there longer 2
- 3. Average years of education by race and birth cohort, 2011 (Source: Own calculations from Census 2011 (Supercross) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Meanyearsofeducationcompleted Birth cohort Black Coloured Indian White Total
- 4. But in Lant Pritchett’s words, “Schooling ain’t learning” – SA performance in international assessments is dismal 4
- 5. Literacy score in PIRLS 2006 565 500 405 302 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Russia HongKong Canada:Alberta Singapore Canada:British… Luxembourg Canada:Ontario Italy Hungary Sweden Germany Netherlands Belgium(Flemish) Bulgaria Denmark Canada:NovaScotia Latvia UnitedStates England Austria Lithuania ChineseTaipei Canada:Quebec NewZealand SlovakRepublic Scotland France Slovenia Poland Spain Israel Iceland Moldova Belgium(French) Norway Romania Georgia Macedonia Trinidad&Tobago Iran Indonesia Qatar Kuwait Morocco SouthAfrica
- 6. Mean Reading scores (SACMEQ III) 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Malawi Zambia Lesotho Mozambique Uganda SouthAfrica Namibia Zimbabwe SACMEQIII Botswana Zanzibar Kenya Swaziland Mauritius Seychelles Tanzania MeanReadingscore
- 7. Mean Reading score for poorest 25% (SACMEQ III) 350 400 450 500 550 600 Zambia SouthAfrica Malawi Lesotho Mozambique Namibia Uganda Zimbabwe Botswana SACMEQIII Zanzibar Seychelles Mauritius Kenya Swaziland Tanzania MeanReadingscore • SA performance in SACMEQ (15 African countries) • Poorest quarter of children: SA 14th in Reading, 12th in Maths • Rural children: 13th in Reading, 12th in Maths
- 8. 400500600700800 -1 0 1 2 3 School SES South Africa Individual SA schools Individual schools and SA trendline Maths Score and School SES
- 9. 450500550600650700 -1 0 1 2 3 School SES South Africa SAQMEQ SA vs SACMEQ Maths Score and School SES
- 10. Cumulative proportion of students from South Africa and England scoring below each score level shown in PIRLS 2006 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Cumulative%ofstudents Score in PIRLS 2006
- 11. For many, maths learning stops before simple subtraction is mastered… Only 24% of South African Grade 5 children can answer this Grade 2 level question Pam has R40. She spends R28. How much money does she have left? Is language perhaps the barrier? Then how can one explain that only 14% of Grade 5s could answer this Grade 3-level question? Source: Janeli Viljoen, 2013 (unpublished) 105 ̶ 7
- 12. At the core, it is a teacher problem… 12
- 13. Opportunity to learn • In NW province, teachers teach only 40% of scheduled lessons (Carnoy, Chisholm et al. 2012) • By Sept/Oct, one-third of SA grade 5 children had not written a single paragraph-length piece during that whole school year (NSES study) • Number of literacy exercises found in the “best” learner’s book (Gr5): – Former white schools 75 – Former black schools 33 13
- 14. School level continuous assessment and exam marks, Maths HG 2005 Parents and children get little information about performance from the school system
- 15. Teacher views on % of class at appropriate level in Numeracy for grade at beginning and end of year 47% 79% 56% 85% 55% 84% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 End of Grade 3 Grade 1 teacher Grade 2 teacher Grade 3 teacher % achieving WCED standard in tests
- 16. BACKGROUND: NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 16
- 17. The odds are stacked against poor children… “a failure of family and school contexts to build on the early cognitive development of bright children from low SES groups … may be a crucial and under-recognised difference between children from disadvantaged and advantaged backgrounds and a key reason for social immobility.” (Feinstein & Duckworth 2006: i) This is where the contribution of scholarship initiatives such as those of Allan Gray Orbis is so important
- 18. Of ±1 million children in a cohort, 100% 55% 42% ±16% ±11% ±6% - 100 000 200 000 300 000 400 000 500 000 600 000 700 000 800 000 900 000 1 000 000 Children in cohort Reach matric Pass matric Attain Bachelor's pass Attend university Graduate with degree
- 19. Children ‘on track’ by grade and quintile in ANA Maths, 2012 0 100 000 200 000 300 000 400 000 500 000 600 000 700 000 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 9 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 “On track” defined as not over-aged and within one std dev of “norm group”
- 20. % of entering cohort ‘on track’ in ANA 2012 and Bachelor’s passes in Gr.12, by school quintile & grade 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cohort entering On track Gr1 On track Gr2 On track Gr4 On track Gr6 On track Gr9 Gr12 Bachelor's pass Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
- 21. % of entering cohort on track in various grades in ANA 2012 & ANA 2013 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 % Bachelor's Pass 2012 % on Track 2012 % on Track 2013
- 22. Learning deficits • By Grade 4, patterns of ‘on track’ performance across quintiles approximate matric exemption patterns: academic and labour market prospects are bleak for children who are no longer on track • This requires greater emphasis on Foundation Phase or earlier – whether deficits arise from weak early instruction, or because disadvantaged home environments require early remediation
- 23. THE ROLE OF GRADE R (AND ECD) 23
- 24. Literature review • Scientific knowledge limited: – Few good evaluations – Gaps in documenting causal relations – Little assessment of costs and benefits • Limited information on developing countries • No consistent body of evidence from South Africa: – Sobambisana programme found mixed impact on children’s readiness for Gr R (based on cognitive, language, numeracy & academic readiness tests) – Factors largely beyond programmes’ control tempered results (Dawes, Biersteker & Hendricks, 2011) – 65% of Gr R’s do not meet minimum criteria for early literacy development and will enter Gr 1 without skills or concepts to master reading (De Witt, Lessing & Lenyai 2006) • Easy to confuse selection and impact: – Do children whose parents send them to ECD do better because of ECD, or because of the motivation of their parents?
- 25. • Life trajectory established early; gaps persistent • schooling simply reinforces emerging trends and usually widens gaps (Feinstein, 2003) • SA study found stable language delays between Gr R & Gr 3 – education not powerful enough to overcome entrenched problem (Klop, 2005) • Characteristics at age 7 explain much of variation in educ. attainment, earnings and employment (Almond & Currie 2010) • High returns to early investments, because: • Longer period to reap returns (Heckman, 2007) • Later remediation costly and less effective • ‘Skills beget skills’ • Early investment also best to reduce inequalities Human capital development and ECD 25
- 26. LongtermShortterm A quality pre-school’s supposed benefits 26 Increased achievement test scores Decreased grade retention Decreased special/remedial education Increased high school graduation Increased tertiary enrolment Improved behaviour and attitudes Decreased crime & delinquency Decreased welfare dependence Increase in earnings Increase in tax receipts Increased parental employment Educational benefits
- 27. Paths through which Grade R makes competent Grade 1 children 27 • Emergent literacy (alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, letter sounds) highly related to later literacy • Primary mechanism by which low income leads to underachievement Language skills • Such skills predict and cause outcomes • Heckman: motivation, socioemotional regulation, time preference, personality factors, ability to work with others • Sensitive, responsive teaching strengthens effortful control, ability to persevere, enthusiasm, sociability Non- cognitive skills
- 28. GRADE R IN SOUTH AFRICA 28
- 29. Nr of Gr R learners in public & independent schools 2001 2005 2010 2012 EC 18 873 105 231 164 803 158 363 FS 16 002 18 449 27 209 30 639 GT 23 920 41 073 76 460 95 374 KZN 73 993 79 276 175 541 189 169 LIM 84 243 98 273 113 432 117 950 MPU 5 803 14 171 51 758 59 202 NC 4 042 6 598 12 387 15 036 NW 3 176 9 737 42 010 44 489 WC 11 473 32 389 43 603 57 643 Total 241 525 405 197 707 203 767 865 29
- 30. Cost of a Grade R place • Gr R spending per learner of R3 112 only 30% of Non-Grade R level of R10 500 – much less than the 70% recommended in Norms & Standards • Gr R offered at lower cost, cross-subsidisation within schools difficult to control • High coverage associated with lower spending: Western Cape & Gauteng have high spending and low coverage • Further expenditure required to increase practitioners and thus covered learners
- 32. Data set • Dataset of 18 102 schools Obtained by merging SNAP data on learners in each grade, test data from ANA, and EMIS Masterlist • ANA data on maths and home language for Grades 1 to Converted to normalised score (mean 0, std deviation 1 for each grade), to make scores comparable (in relative terms) across grades • EMIS provides school quintile and school fees – School fees in 2007 a measure of affluence and resources • Large datasets allows precise estimation of effect sizes 32
- 33. Measuring treatment Treatment measure: % of learners in a given cohort that attended Gr R and also Gr 2 two years later 33
- 34. Determining causal impact • Other factors may also influence outcomes – Some we can control for (e.g. SES) – 0bservables – Others we cannot – Unobservables • Endogeneity is a confounding effect and limits our ability to draw causal inferences • Example: Factors that could affect both treatment and learning: – Better managed schools may more easily introduce Gr R, and would also usually have better learning outcomes – Departments may put more effort into introducing Gr R in weaker schools 34
- 35. Treatment and results across schools and grades 35 Relativeperformance Treatment (attending Gr R)
- 36. Treatment and results across schools and grades 36 Relativeperformance Treatment (attending Gr R)
- 37. Fixed effects: Each school treated separately to eliminate unobservables 37 Relativeperformance Treatment (attending Gr R) School A School B School C School D School E
- 38. Fixed effects: Each school treated separately to eliminate unobservable differences 38 Relativeperformance Treatment (attending Gr R) School A School B School C School D School E
- 39. Interpreting effect sizes • Treatment effects measured in standard deviations (SD) of test scores –Coefficient on treatment variable reflects the effect of full treatment rather than no treatment, i.e. having all children rather than none attending Gr R • International literature assumes that a year’s learning (200 days of instruction) improves test scores by ± 40% of a SD 39
- 40. Effect of treatment (fixed effects model) • Home language gain +10.2% SD – Equivalent to 25% of a year of learning in home language – what average learner learns in 50 days • Maths gain +2.5% SD for 2012 sample: – Equivalent to 6% of a year of learning in maths – what average learner learns in 12 days • No clear evidence of fade-out • These are small effects 40
- 41. SA effect sizes in comparison (in % SD) 2.5 20.3 10.1 -0.8 0.0 1.5 10.2 19.4 11.5 -0.2 7.7 1.7 40 42 80 65 38 23 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Maths: All Maths: Q5 Maths: Q4 Maths: Q3 Maths: Q2 Maths: Q1 Home Language: All Home Language: Q5 Home Language: Q4 Home Language:Q3 Home Language: Q2 Home Language: Q1 One year of learning US average preschool Oklahoma pre-writing & spelling Oklahoma pre-reading Oklahoma early maths reasoning Argentina Gr 3 Maths & Spanish
- 43. Conclusions about Grade R impact • Dataset enables accurate estimation of effects • Fixed effects control for unobserved heterogeneity (endogeneity), thus causal effects estimated • Grade R has clearly had a net positive impact on learning, albeit small Effects may be lasting: little sign of fade-out (decay) in higher grades Channels not clear, however (e.g. role of nutrition/ school feeding) No discernible effects in bottom quintiles 43
- 44. Conclusions about Grade R impact (cont) • Measured effects for full sample small Maths: overall less than 1 month’s learning (2.5% SD) Home Language: ± 2 months (10.2% SD) • Effects stronger for better performing provinces & higher quintiles But even in stronger provinces & higher quintiles, less than half a year’s addition to learning (Quintile 4 ±10% & Quintile 5 ± 20%) • Programme quality is priority
- 45. Recommendations • Grade R completely underfunded according to DBE’s own criteria (30% rather than 70% of other learners), with large inter-provincial differences • Quality requires threshold levels of funding of both personnel and LTSM – need to ensure this • Provinces must ensure Grade R is not crowded out by other spending 45
- 46. Recommendations (cont.) A quality year of Gr R is critical for transition to Gr 1: Closely monitor teaching & learning; needs dedicated personnel Develop common tools to assess language, emergent literacy, maths development Establish quality criteria for schools to self-assess & for M&E Gr R curriculum has key role in closing gaps: Recognise importance of mediated language enrichment Provide structured curriculum support for CAPS, with practical ideas on ‘how’ to achieve learning outcomes More in-service training to provide practical strategies & opportunities to see & practice best teaching Develop programmes & resources for local context & for poor children