{ "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-a3737f540343", "docSlug": "d791b7fba79d000b", "documentTitle": "Education: Mega Trends and Opportunities in Africa", "authorId": "LEK", "authorName": "Center for Global Development", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.773, "pageNumber": 10, "pageCount": 101, "prevPage": 9, "nextPage": 11, "slideType": "appendix_methodology", "function": "summarize", "density": "dense", "nDataPoints": 15, "notes": "This page appears to be a text-heavy appendix or methodology section from a research report.", "elementsJson": [ "paragraph" ], "metadataConfidence": 0.9, "imagePath": null, "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-a3737f540343/10", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-a3737f540343", "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-a3737f540343.json", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-a3737f540343#slide-10", "components": [ { "bbox": { "h": 0.21, "w": 0.66, "x": 0.17, "y": 0.09 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "teacher- and teaching-targeted programs such as pedagogy, mother tongue instruction, education technology, teacher incentives and trainings, and hiring practices; (ii) student-level interventions including health and nutrition programs (e.g., school feeding), incentives for students, and individual inputs such as uniforms, solar lamps, or bicycles; and (iii) school-level interventions such as school construction, school grants, public-private partnerships and other non-government school provision, and community-based monitoring. The household-level interventions usually aim to reduce the economic and social barriers that keep households from sending their children to school – providing cash transfers, providing low-cost early child development care centers, and providing learning and attendance information to parents.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "4cb2925c-a570-4277-b45b-755fc0dd788e", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.08, "w": 0.66, "x": 0.17, "y": 0.8 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "In addition to the 19 percent of studies that evaluate national policies, almost half of the studies evaluate the impact of a single treatment. The other 35 percent have multiple treatment arms (Table 5). 28 studies evaluate two treatment arms, 17 studies test three treatment arms, and six studies test four or more treatment arms. One outlier, Haushofer and Shapiro (2016) randomized cash transfers to gender of the recipient, frequency of", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "6b4b07af-d842-437c-a598-8dd6596bd2da", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.26, "w": 0.66, "x": 0.17, "y": 0.31 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "A significant number of studies were implemented through government channels (Table 2). In addition to the 19 percent of studies that examined national policy reforms (such as free primary education), 46 percent of the 145 studies partnered with government agencies, most often the ministry of education for school construction, teacher trainings, or incentive policies, the ministry of health for school feeding, or the relevant government agency for cash transfers. 40 percent of the studies in our sample worked with non-government organizations such as BRAC, the World Food Programme, the Aga Khan Foundation, or Twaweza. A smaller number (17 studies) worked with private partners such as for-profit schools, clinics, or educational companies. About 15 percent of the studies did not employ any implementing partner aside from the research teams themselves. Some of these researcher-only studies evaluated smaller, less intensive interventions (e.g., a specific pedagogical technique). More than half of the interventions were evaluated using randomized controlled trials (58 percent of studies); the next most common empirical method was difference-in-differences (25 percent), which was the most common method for evaluating national policies.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "755f4ac1-ff37-49f4-a41c-a3c3d808632f", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.02, "w": 0.01, "x": 0.49, "y": 0.93 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "8", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "bd945f42-a0ce-4570-86d5-e61ffb3f1bda", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.09, "w": 0.66, "x": 0.17, "y": 0.7 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "In terms of scale, 27 of our 145 studies evaluate national reform policies. For studies that are not national in scale and that report schools as treatment units, we find an average treatment group size of 96 schools (median: 66 schools). There are some larger studies: the 90th percentile includes 211 treated schools (Carneiro et al., 2016). Table 4 shows the average treatment group size for studies reporting other treatment units such as districts, communities, or individuals.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "c27e995c-501a-4b62-9bb6-cf1e5b02758c", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.11, "w": 0.66, "x": 0.17, "y": 0.58 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "A limited number of studies offer cost information (Table 3). Two out of five studies in our sample have no cost analysis at all. About one quarter provide a full cost-effectiveness analysis, and the others provide limited information on costs, usually only the cost of one specific input, such as a stipend for the trainer or the value of a voucher provided to students. A handful of studies make claims such as an intervention being a \"cost-effective measure\" or \"scalable (low-cost)\" without providing any cost details.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "ee20a3f4-8396-418e-8e73-6f02e06a2fd1", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null } ], "metrics": [], "tools": [ { "name": "Table data", "slug": "table-data", "agent": null, "layer": "slide", "matchId": "ff62928e-69cd-43f6-b9c6-35d73bc8bd43", "evidence": "A significant number of studies were implemented through government channels (Table 2).", "confidence": 0.7 } ], "frameworks": [], "arcBeats": [ { "to": 24, "from": 6, "beatId": "c5b8f4ec-2ddd-4073-8d6a-63f019ccbfbd", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Problem & Complication", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication", "evidence": "The document's analysis of challenges in education in Africa, including low learning outcomes and access issues.", "position": 1, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "loops": [ { "to": 20, "from": 10, "name": "Cost Of Inaction", "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction", "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation", "matchId": "e791d344-6621-4b92-836c-ada67d6abf52", "evidence": "The document's discussion of the costs of inaction in education, including foregone economic opportunities.", "position": 0, "objective": "Highlighting the consequences of not addressing education challenges in Africa", "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point", "confidence": 0.6, "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }