Using evidence to improve children’s foundational skills in India
Context
Low learning levels are a major challenge in rural India, where schooling does not often translate into learning. Although enrolment rates for children in the 6-to-14-year-old age group were 97 per cent in 2018, just around half of the children enrolled in grade 5 could read a grade 2 text, and only 28 per cent were able to solve simple division problems. Compounding the problem is a lack of tools to help teachers identify student-learning levels and customise their teaching, together with high pupil-to-teacher ratios.
Pratham, a large education NGO in India, developed the Teaching at the Right Level (TARL) methodology to improve learning outcomes. The model involves grouping children (typically in grades 3 to 5) based on their learning levels. Teachers use appropriate activities and materials to help children acquire foundational skills in reading and arithmetic. Instead of relying on an end-of-year exam, teachers assess students’ progress more regularly using easily administered assessment tools.
For more than a decade, Pratham and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), a leading research organisation specialising in randomised impact evaluations, have conducted evaluations of this methodology, thereby establishing it as an evidence-informed approach for improving children’s learning outcomes.
Although TaRL had been found to be effective when implemented by volunteers and government schoolteachers outside school hours, the partners wanted to test its effectiveness when delivered through the government system. The 3ie-supported evaluation had four treatment arms:
- the teacher-led Learning Enhancement Programme (LEP) for Hindi that used Pratham’s TaRL model and the routine official teacher monitoring system;
- the government’s Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) system, which involves teachers evaluating student performance regularly through various techniques, instead of one final exam;
- a combination of LEP and CCE; and
- control schools, which received no intervention.
The evaluation was conducted in 400 primary schools in two districts of Haryana, India.
Evidence
The impact evaluation showed CCE did not have any impact on learning outcomes when compared to the status quo. However, LEP had a large, positive and statistically significant effect on students’ basic Hindi reading and writing abilities. The effect was larger for girls than boys. Combining LEP and CCE had no significant effect on test scores relative to LEP alone. Also, LEP had no impact on mathematics scores.
Process monitoring showed that CCE did not lead to any change in teaching practices in terms of implementing any CCE-recommended techniques. Conversely, LEP had high levels of compliance and was well implemented.
Evidence impacts
Type of impact: Inform discussions of policies and programmes
When subsequent phases of the evaluated programme or policy draw from the findings of the evaluation or review, and/or the study team participates in informing the design of a subsequent phase.
This is one of 3ie’s seven types of evidence use. Impact types are based on what we find in the monitoring data for an evaluation or review. Due to the nature of evidence-informed decision-making and action, 3ie looks for verifiable contributions that our evidence makes, not attribution.
Read our complete evidence impact typology and verification approach here.
Close windowElements from the evaluated intervention were taken up in a new programme scaled to 5,000 government primary schools in Haryana. The new programme included remedial education, regrouping children based on their learning levels, building competencies rather than completing the curriculum, and involving government’s resource coordinators for monitoring and mentoring support.
Type of impact: Inform the design of other programmes
Where findings from the evaluation or review inform the design of a programme(s) other than the one(s) evaluated.
This is one of 3ie’s seven types of evidence use. Impact types are based on what we find in the monitoring data for an evaluation or review. Due to the nature of evidence-informed decision-making and action, 3ie looks for verifiable contributions that our evidence makes, not attribution.
Read our complete evidence impact typology and verification approach here.
Close windowType of impact: Inform the design of other programmes
Where findings from the evaluation or review inform the design of a programme(s) other than the one(s) evaluated.
This is one of 3ie’s seven types of evidence use. Impact types are based on what we find in the monitoring data for an evaluation or review. Due to the nature of evidence-informed decision-making and action, 3ie looks for verifiable contributions that our evidence makes, not attribution.
Read our complete evidence impact typology and verification approach here.
Close windowJ-PAL Africa and Pratham have worked together to support organisations and governments in Zambia and Côte d’Ivoire to adapt, pilot and scale up TaRL programmes. In Zambia, the Ministry of General Education is expanding the Catch Up pilot project to 1,800 schools by 2020. Pratham provided technical support to a Belgian Flemish organisation, VVOB education for development, and the government during the pilot process. Along with VVOB, UNICEF and J-PAL Africa, Pratham continues to work with the ministry on the scale-up.
In 2018, the Ministry of National Education of Côte d’Ivoire partnered with Transforming Education in Cocoa Communities, Pratham and J-PAL Africa to adapt and pilot the approach in 50 primary schools.
Suggested citation
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2020. Using evidence to improve children’s foundational skills in India [online summary], Evidence Impact Summaries. New Delhi: 3ie.
Related
From proof of concept to scalable policies: challenges and solutions, with an application, NBER, Dec 2016
This working paper describes how the 3ie-supported Haryana evaluation evidence contributed to take-up of the TaRL model by strengthening the theory with practical insights.
Case study: Teaching at the Right Level to improve learning
Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab’s case study of how research has informed decision-making in the context of foundational learning interventions.
Evidence impact summaries aim to demonstrate and encourage the use of evidence to inform programming and policymaking. These reflect the information available to 3ie at the time of posting. Since several factors influence policymaking, the summaries highlight contributions of evidence rather than endorsing a policy or decision or claiming that it can be attributed solely to evidence. If you have any suggestions or updates to improve this summary, please write to influence@3ieimpact.org