A reader who works for an international agency sent me this essay about a pressing problem. For obvious reasons, he will remain anonymous, but his sources are cited.
Learning Metrics Taskforce: If you can’t teach the students of poor countries, just test them!
Much has been written about testing problems and corporate interests in the US. Could similar forces be operating outside the US? Here is a story that few readers probably know.
In poor countries education is mainly for the middle class. Most citizens of countries such as Rwanda, Congo, or Papua New Guinea have traditionally remained illiterate. In 1990 a worldwide initiative was launched, called “Education for All”. It was led by the World Bank and has evolved into a multi-billion dollar fund. About 55 low-income governments have received grants to build schools, buy books, and recruit teachers. Parents desperately want to send children to school, so when schools open, they quickly fill up. But there is a glitch: In very poor circumstances, children fail to learn. A World Bank study estimated in 2012 that only 67% of students in Subsaharan Africa finish primary school and of those who finish, 25% are illiterate.
The ‘learning crisis’, as it is called, has multiple causes. My partner and I spent about 12 years teaching for a charity organization, and we witnessed them first hand. Urban classes have 60-120 students with children seated on the floor. Teachers are often absent, may not know how to teach, and they are never supervised. Corrupt officials often demand bribes, and textbooks are stolen before they get to schools. Children are malnourished and hungry. Not much is taught under these conditions.
Donors such as the World Bank ought to have a good handle on this reality. But their staff hardly visit classrooms. They prefer the company of high officials who send their children to private schools and have private agendas. Most world bankers are economists, so they love the virtual reality of datasets and glossy publications. Incredibly, the donors’ response to scant instruction is not better teaching but better testing. Governments are encouraged to develop learning benchmarks, test students against them, and then figure out how to teach children to achieve the benchmarks.
The triumph of testing over teaching was definitively proclaimed through the “Learning Metrics Task Force” deliberations. The prestigious Brookings Institute conducted a large-scale consultation that involved 1700 staff members of 30 organizations. They were asked to define what children should learn in school and how the learning should be measured. Dozens of organizer staff flew to exotic destinations like Dubai and Bellagio, Italy to deliberate on the findings.
The report was formally launched on September 24, 2013 at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly. [click here http://globaleducationfirst.org/2996.htm see entire report here http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/09/learning-metrics-task-force-universal-learning
The report affirms the need to take immediate action to ensure children’s right to quality education. Nevertheless, it says nothing about the practical obstacles to learning such as corruption, harassment, book thefts, and failure to teach. In fact the word “teach” is not mentioned even once. Students are somehow expected to learn through “opportunities to develop competencies across seven domains of learning, starting in early childhood through adolescence.” To achieve this, a small set of key learning indicators will be tracked globally, such as literacy and numeracy. Countries will obtain technical help to diagnose the quality of their assessment systems, convene stakeholders to determine priorities, identify inequities, and make the appropriate policy changes.
To justify this view, the task force introduces the concept that assessment is a Public Good (pp. 12, 32). No country should be denied the opportunity to test students just because they cannot afford to. Parents and other stakeholders should become advocates of testing (p. 15) and for increased funding for testing (p. 17).
To help children quickly there is not a moment to lose. The task force will meet in November 2013 and develop a plan for moving forward. Launch events will be held in at least 15 cities around the world from September through November 2013, to make stakeholders aware of the test benefits.
The “learning metrics” task force seems so out of touch with reality that its main recommendation is a “Global Paradigm Shift” – from mere investment in access to “access plus learning”. Really, in 2013? Over the last 20 years piles of studies have documented learning failures, while numerous UNESCO workshops have taken place on quality improvement. With the same surreal touch, the document omits references to the large-scale testing that has already taken place. Since the 1990s the kids have been fed alphabet-soup tests such as PASEC, SACMEC, TIMSS, EGRA, EGMA, ASER, Uwezo, and other tests (see www.eddataglobal.org). And practically no cases are known of governments that put test results to good uses and improved outcomes.
So why did the Brookings Institution compromise its standards for this initiative? Why not form a teaching-for-poverty task force? Cynics point to money, but experience with poor schools leads to some sobering decisions. Donors mainly want to see activities and feel optimistic for the future. The most productive activity is to help schools teach students, but it is time-consuming, sometimes dangerous and often frustrating. Donors may become disappointed and pull out. By contrast, testing is a winner. Field work takes just a few weeks, and analyses can be done from the comfort of air conditioned offices. The staff involved get invited to international conferences, pad their resumes, get promoted. It’s up to the host governments to use test results for policy improvement.
As the task force rushes into implementation, the only certain outcome is consultant welfare. Testing companies are asked to donate time (p. 35), but seven domains in all countries of the world amount to huge numbers of tests. USAID and other donors have spent millions on testing in the past, so consultant companies and associated nonprofits are preparing for a windfall. Our boss is also optimistic.
The smell of money may be one reason why no one has criticized the report publicly. The people who are building careers and retirement funds from money destined to educate poor kids will strongly argue that they are doing the very best they can for them. Anyway many countries are slowly rising out of poverty, and eventually the poor will turn up educated. It may not be exactly ‘Education for All’, but ‘Testing for All” is considered acceptable progress.
