Towards progressive universalism: the impact of inequalities on learning achievement.
IIEP Strategic Debate - May 2017
Speaker: Pauline Rose, Director, Research for Equitable Access and Learning (REAL) Centre, University of Cambridge
Moderator: Suzanne Grant Lewis (Director IIEP)
Drawing on analysis of available large-scale datasets, this session will show how inequalities in learning between the rich and poor and, amongst the poor by gender, widen substantially over the primary school cycle. It will also identify that children with disabilities are most likely to be left behind. The evidence further demonstrates that access to higher education for children from poor households is strongly dependent on their learning in the early years. Analysis will be presented showing that, where children from poor backgrounds have the same opportunities as those from rich backgrounds, learning gaps narrow significantly. It will further identify the importance of changing the way in which public resources are allocated, to achieve ‘progressive universalism’. The Debate will conclude by identifying ways in which data collection could be improved in resource-poor environments to enable better monitoring of education SDGs related to learning, with a focus on tracking progress for the most disadvantaged groups.
Human-AI Collaborationfor Virtual Capacity in Emergency Operation Centers (E...
IIEP-UNESCO Strategic Debate: the impact of inequalities on learning achievement
1. Towards progressive universalism: the impact
of inequalities on learning achievement
Professor Pauline Rose
REAL Centre, Faculty of Education University of Cambridge
2.
3. Learning inequalities and progressive universalism
SDG4 Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children in
grades 2/3 achieving at least a minimum
proficiency level in reading and maths
We need to give greatest priority to those
children most at risk of being excluded from
learning so unequal opportunities in one
generation do not lead to unequal outcomes for
the next… We can accomplish this only through
a progressive universalism that will combine a
commitment to every child with more resources
devoted to those children who need most help.
4. Data sources
UNESCO Institute for Statistics database
Demographic and Health Surveys
Sample-based household surveys assessing
children in and out of school:
Citizen-led assessments
Annual nationwide annual survey of children’s literacy
and numeracy in India, Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania and
Uganda
Sample size ranges from 87,000 in Uganda to 655,000
in India
Young Lives
Longitudinal study of children and young people in
Ethiopia, India (Andhra Pradesh), Peru, Viet Nam
Cohort of ~1000 children born around 1994; surveyed
at age 8, 12, 15 & 19
Photo courtesy of Uwezo Uganda
6. Wide learning gap between rich and poor children, taking
account of whether or not children are in school
7. Steep progress needed to achieve basic learning for all
0
20
40
60
80
100
2015 2020 2025 2030
Percentagewhohavelearned
thebasics
Rural India
0
20
40
60
80
100
2015 2020 2025 2030
Percentagewhohavelearned
thebasics
Rural Pakistan
0
20
40
60
80
100
2015 2020 2025 2030
Percentagewhohavelearned
thebasics
Uganda
0
20
40
60
80
100
2015 2020 2025 2030
Percentagewhohavelearned
thebasics
Tanzania
0
20
40
60
80
100
2015 2020 2025 2030
Percentagewhohavelearned
thebasics
Kenya
Source: Author calculations based on ASER and UWEZO, 2012
8. Poorest girls are more likely to be out of primary school
Source: Authors’ calculations based on ASER Pakistan
9. In rural Pakistan, the poorest girls who are out of school have
no chance of learning
Source: Authors’ calculations based on ASER Pakistan
10. In rural Pakistan, the poorest girls who are out of school have
no chance of learning
Source: Authors’ calculations based on ASER Pakistan
11. Source: Paper prepared for the International Commission on Financing Global Education
Authors’ calculations based on ASER Pakistan, 2015
Access and learning for children with disabilities in
rural Punjab, Pakistan
12. In rural India, learning gaps widen in early years
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7 8 9 10 11
Percentagewhocandothebasics
(divisionandreadingastory)
Age
Rich girl, both parents attended school Rich boy, both parents attended school
Poor boy, neither parent attended school Poor girl, neither parent attended school
Source: Authors’ calculations based on ASER, India
By age 11 only
around 7% of
poor girls have
achieved the
basics
13. Poorer children are far more likely to keep up when they get
similar schooling opportunities
Models: (1) OLS, (2) school fixed effects,
(3) class fixed effects
Source: Uwezo 2013, child ages 10–13
14. Poorer children are far more likely to keep up when they get
similar schooling opportunities
Models: (1) OLS, (2) school fixed effects,
(3) class fixed effects
Source: Uwezo 2013, child aged 10–13
15. Poorer children are far more likely to keep up when they get
similar schooling opportunities to the rich
Models: (1) OLS, (2) school fixed effects,
(3) class fixed effects
Source: Uwezo 2013, child ages 10–13
16. Higher education access almost non-existent for the poorest…
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
SaoTomeandPrincipe
Tanzania
Niger
Rwanda
Malawi
Mozambique
Liberia
India
Maldives
BurkinaFaso
Zambia
Madagascar
SierraLeone
Senegal
Coted'Ivoire
Swaziland
Zimbabwe
Mali
Kenya
Ghana
Congo,Dem.Rep.
Ethiopia
Gabon
Lesotho
Benin
Namibia
Congo
Nigeria
Guinea
Cameroon
Comoros
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nepal
Higher education net enrolment rates, young people under 25 years, poorest 50% & richest 50%
Poor Rich
Source: Demographic and Health Surveys
17. … because so few complete secondary, or even primary, school
16
26
19
32
65
77
70
85
40
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2000-2005 2010-2015
Primarycompletionrate(%)
Primary completion rate in SSA
Poorest girl Poorest boy Richest girl Richest boy Average
6 56
18
47
63
47
68
23
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2000-2005 2010-2015
Lowersecondarycompletionrate(%)
Lower secondary completion rate in SSA
Poorest girl Poorest boy Richest girl Richest boy Average
18. Wealth and early learning: the strongest
determinants of university access
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Young Lives data
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peru India Vietnam Ethiopia
Chancesofaccesinghigher
educationaged19
Richest children who are learning at age 8
Poorest children who are learning at age 8
19. Wealth and early learning: the strongest
determinants of university access
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peru India Vietnam Ethiopia
Chancesofaccesinghigher
educationaged19
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Young Lives data Richest children who are learning at age 8
Poorest children who are learning at age 8
Richest children who are NOT learning at age 8
20. Wealth and early learning: the strongest
determinants of university access
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Peru India Vietnam Ethiopia
Chancesofaccesinghigher
educationaged19
Richest children who are learning at age 8
Poorest children who are learning at age 8
Richest children who are NOT learning at age 8
Poorest children who are NOT learning at age 8
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Young Lives data
21. In advocating progressive universalism,
the Commission ..proposes that funds
be allocated for the highest return
activities and to those least able to pay.
It implies strongly favoring of the
allocation of public funding to the lower
levels of the education ladder, and,
within that, to those left behind because
of poverty, disability, and social
disadvantage.
Progressive universalism and financing priorities
22. Who benefits from
public spending on
education?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Liberia
Congo
Guinea
Malawi
Senegal
D.R. Congo
Burkina Faso
Lesotho
Sierra Leone
Mali
Ghana
Benin
Tanzania
Niger
Côte d'Ivoire
Rwanda
Cameroon
Zambia
Kenya
Madagascar
Togo
Zimbabwe
Swaziland
Mozambique
Ethiopia
Maldives
Gambia
Namibia
Bangladesh
Comoros
Nepal
Group 1: poorest receive at
least 50% of public
expenditure spent on
richest
Group 3: poorest receive
less than 10% of public
expenditure spent on
richest
Group 2: poorest receive
between 10% and 50% of
public expenditure spent on
richest
Source: Ilie and Rose (2016) based on DHS and UNESCO
Institute for Statistics database
23. 23
Who benefits from public spending on education?
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Guinea
Mali
Burkina Faso
Niger
Mozambique
Ethopia
Senegal
Cote d'Ivoire
Tanzania
Malawi
Benin
Rwanda
Madagascar
Cameroon
Ghana
Nepal
Congo
Kenya
Lesotho
Bangladesh
India
Zimbabwe
Swaziland
Namibia
Pro-poor Pro-rich
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mozambique
Ethopia
Cote d'Ivoire
Niger
Burkina Faso
Madagascar
Tanzania
Guinea
Malawi
Cameroon
Mali
Rwanda
Lesotho
Congo
Benin
Senegal
Swaziland
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Kenya
India
Ghana
Namibia
Nepal
Pro-rich
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Cote d'Ivoire
Madagascar
Burkina Faso
Malawi
Mozambique
Benin
Ethopia
Namibia
Tanzania
Guinea
Congo
Mali
Lesotho
Senegal
Swaziland
Kenya
Ghana
India
Bangladesh
Niger
Rwanda
Nepal
Pro-rich
Ratio of education spending on richest 20% vs poorest 20%
Primary education Secondary education Higher education
Source: Ilie and Rose (2016) based on DHS and UNESCO
Institute for Statistics database
24. Policy lessons to leave no one behind
SDG
monitoring
Tackle
disadvantage
early
Use data!
Track progress from the early years
Identify and implement policies
associated with disadvantage in
early years
Use data on access, learning and
financing to inform policy at local,
national and global levels
25. Tackle disadvantage early – education strategies
• Support early childhood programmes
• Ensure teaching is at the right pace
• Provide disadvantaged learners with
best teachers
• Provide appropriate learning materials
• Empower all parents and communities
to hold schools to account
• Adopt ‘progressive universalism’
principles for distribution of education
financing
26. Measurement lessons to leave no one behind
+ indicators
Linkage
Skills
Comparative measures of
wealth; include disability
Link households and
schools, panel data
Add non-cognitive and
advanced skills
27. REAL Centre research on leaving no one behind
Evaluations of tracer studies of
Speed Schools in Ethiopia
and
Complementary Basic Education in Ghana
Cost effectiveness and scaling up
Camfed’s adolescent girls’ programme in
Tanzania and Zimbabwe
Case studies of assessment to action for in
13 countries
Teaching Effectively All Children:
India and Pakistan
Notas del editor
Composite index based on survey questions about household possessions
Measure validated in many studies, and routinely used
Comparable across countries
Replaces information about income, which is difficult to ask about and responses are often unreliable
Country groups:
Group 1 (green marker): High learning rate (over 75%) for both richest and poorest: Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine (3 countries)
Group 2 (blue marker): High learning rate (over 75%) for the richest and moderate learning rates (25% to 75%) for the poorest: Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Swaziland, Zimbabwe (6 countries)
Group 3 (yellow marker): High learning rate (over 75%) for the richest and very low learning rates (under 25%) for the poorest: Madagascar (1 country)
Group 4 (purple marker): Moderate learning rates (25% to 75%) for both richest and poorest: Kenya (1 country)
Group 5 (red marker): Moderate learning rates (25% to 75%) for the richest and very low learning rates (under 25%) for the poorest: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Congo, India, Lesotho, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda (17 countries)
In some countries such as rural Pakistan big gap in part due to unequal access to school (incl for girls)
Gender and poverty interact – but poverty is driver
India – Andhra Pradesh
Holding all else constant children from the poorest quintile are 3 (India and Ethiopia) to 7 times (Peru) less likely than children from the richest quintile to have accessed higher education by age 19.
Holding all else constant, early learning as important in Ethiopia, India and Vietnam – and almost as important in Peru
Similar for boys and girls
: favoring of the allocation of public funding to the lower levels of the education ladder, and, within that, to those left behind