![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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/educationprimaryeminentpanel-210125062957/85/Ghana-Priorities-Education-Quality-6-320.jpg)
Ghana Priorities: Education Quality
- 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
- 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