IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/fcnddp/16415.html

Do Crowded Classrooms Crowd Out Learning? Evidence From The Food For Education Program In Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed, Akhter U.
  • Arends-Kuenning, Mary

Abstract

In Bangladesh, pervasive poverty has kept generations of families from sending their children to school, and without education, their children's future will be a distressing echo of their own. Many children from poor families in Bangladesh do not attend school either because their families cannot afford books and other school materials, or because the children contribute to their family's livelihood and cannot be spared. In some areas, there is also a lack of schools. Among those who enter primary school, only about 40 percent of them complete it. The commendable success of the Food for Education (FFE) program of the Government of Bangladesh has led to larger classes, but do these crowded classrooms crowd out learning? How does FFE work? The Government of Bangladesh launched the FFE program in 1993. The FFE program provided a free monthly ration of foodgrains to poor families in rural areas if their children enrolled in primary school, and maintained an 85 percent attendance rate. The family could consume the grain or sell it and use the cash to meet other expenses. Before the program was terminated in June 2002, the FFE program covered about 27 percent of all primary schools and enrolled about one-third of all primary school students. FFE beneficiary students accounted for about 13 percent of all students in primary schools in Bangladesh. The cost of the program (including the value of foodgrains) was approximately US$37 per beneficiary student per year. A two-step targeting mechanism was used, selecting poor areas, then poor households within those areas. Data from school and household surveys conducted in Bangladesh by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in September-October 2000 were used to evaluate the FFE program. The surveys included primary schools with and without the FFE program, and a cross section of households including program beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. The sample includes 600 households in 60 villages in 30 unions in 10 thanas, and 110 schools in the same 30 unions from which the household sample was drawn. In addition, a standard academic achievement test, designed to assess the quality of education received by students, was given to students in both FFE and non- FFE schools. What was the impact of FFE on learning? IFPRI analysis showed that the FFE program led to increased enrollment and class attendance rates, particularly among girls. However, classrooms of FFE schools became more crowded: on average, classrooms in FFE schools had 22 percent more students (67 students) than classrooms in non-FFE schools (55 students). Within FFE schools, the average test score is lower for FFE beneficiaries than nonbeneficiary students, which brings down the aggregate score in FFE schools. In non-FFE schools, average test scores of all students are comparable to nonbeneficiaries in FFE schools. Boys consistently outperformed girls in the achievement test in all subjects in all types of schools, regardless of FFE beneficiary status. Does classroom crowding (resource dilution) or the lower ability of FFE children (peer effect) affect test scores of non-FFE students in FFE schools? IFPRI's multivariate analysis does not support the resource dilution hypothesis. Class size has no effect on student achievement. Results of the peer effect analysis, however, show that the learning performance of non-FFE students in FFE schools is negatively affected when an average of 44 percent of the students in class are FFE beneficiaries. This is probably due to the teachers having to go more slowly to accommodate poorly performing FFE students. These students come from poorer families. Evidence from household surveys show that children from poor families are less likely to have educated parents who could help them in their studies at home, afford study materials, and find enough time to do the homework, as many of them must contribute to their family's livelihood. Moreover, from birth, these children are often deprived of the basic nutritional building blocks that they need in order to learn. Nevertheless, there are benefits to non-FFE beneficiaries from being in an FFE school because FFE schools must meet certain minimum educational quality standards to maintain FFE eligibility. For example, in FFE schools, at least 10 percent of Grade 5 students must qualify for the national annual scholarship examination. No such performance standards are required for the non-FFE primary schools. These benefits to non-FFE beneficiaries outweigh the negative peer effects up to the point when FFE beneficiaries reached 69 percent of the students in the classroom. After 69 percent, the benefits derived from minimum performance standards vanish. The overall effect at the community level is measured by the Minimum Learning Achievement; the percentage of children in a community who attain a minimum achievement score, weighted by the enrolment rate in that community. The minimum learning achievement in FFE communities is higher than in non-FFE communities (despite the latter tending to be richer) due to the increased enrollment from FFE. Particularly, major benefits accrued to the children from poor families who would not have attended school without the FFE program. Implications for food assistance programming As a food-based social safety net, the FFE program in Bangladesh served a wider purpose than simply providing the poor with immediate sustenance through take-home food rations, important as that is. It has empowered children from poor families with education, thereby paving their pathway out of poverty. The FFE enrollment increase was greater for girls than boys, yet boys consistently outperformed girls on the achievement tests. Having drawn them into school, improving the quality of girls' education will ultimately strengthen the beneficial effects of women's education on various family-level outcomes, such as children's schooling, child health and nutrition, and women's fertility. The concern that learning performance of non-FFE students in FFE schools may be adversely affected by increased class size generated by the FFE program appears to be unfounded. But unchecked, the negative peer effect could hinder student achievement. In the FFE program, this was offset by the requirement that FFE schools must meet certain minimum educational quality standards in order to maintain their school-level eligibility for the program. Setting clear standards for performance is important, even at the primary level. Minimum performance standards should be incorporated in the design of the recently implemented Primary Education Stipend program (a cash-for-education program that has replaced the government's FFE program), as well as in the ongoing pilot testing of the school-feeding program launched by the Government of Bangladesh with support from the World Food Programme.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed, Akhter U. & Arends-Kuenning, Mary, 2003. "Do Crowded Classrooms Crowd Out Learning? Evidence From The Food For Education Program In Bangladesh," FCND Discussion Papers 16415, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:fcnddp:16415
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.16415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/16415/files/fc030149.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.16415?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Pierre-Richard Agénor, 2012. "Infrastructure, Public Education And Growth With Congestion Costs," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 449-469, October.
    3. Agnes Quisumbing & Bob Baulch & Neha Kumar, 2011. "Evaluating the long-term impact of anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh: an overview," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 153-174.
    4. Hüseyin ŞEN & Ayşe KAYA & Barış ALPASLAN, 2018. "Education, Health, and Economic Growth Nexus: A Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis for Developing Countries," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society.
    5. Emily Smith-Greenaway, 2015. "Educational attainment and adult literacy," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(35), pages 1015-1034.
    6. Mohinder S. Mudahar & Raisuddin Ahmed, 2010. "Government and Rural Transformation : Role of Public Spending and Policies in Bangladesh," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 16356, April.
    7. Agenor, Pierre-Richard & Moreno-Dodson, Blanca, 2006. "Public infrastructure and growth : new channels and policy implications," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4064, The World Bank.
    8. Chakraborty, Lekha, 2019. "Federal fiscal policy effectiveness and Inequality: Empirical evidence on Gender Budgeting in Asia Pacific," Working Papers 19/273, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
    9. Lekha Chakraborty, 2016. "Asia: A Survey of Gender Budgeting Efforts," IMF Working Papers 2016/150, International Monetary Fund.
    10. Wang, Haining & Cheng, Zhiming & Smyth, Russell, 2018. "Do migrant students affect local students’ academic achievements in urban China?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 64-77.
    11. Nelson, Suzanne & Brown, Vicky & Presnall, Carrie & Downen, Jeanne & Frankenberger, Timothy R., 2015. "Ex-Post impact assessment review of IFPRI’s research program on social protection, 2000–2012," Impact assessments 40, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Hüseyin Sen & Ayse Kaya & Baris Alpaslan, 2015. "Education, Health, and Economic Growth Nexus: A Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis for Developing Countries," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1502, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    13. Julia Behrman, 2015. "Do Targeted Stipend Programs Reduce Gender and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Schooling Attainment? Insights From Rural Bangladesh," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(6), pages 1917-1927, December.
    14. Agnes R. Quisumbing & Bob Baulch, 2013. "Assets and Poverty Traps in Rural Bangladesh," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(7), pages 898-916, July.
    15. David Tobón & Germán Darío Valencia Agudelo & Paul Ríos Gallego & John Fredy Bedoya, 2008. "Hierarchical Organization and School Academic Achievement in Medellin: An Analysis from the Educational Production Function," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 68, pages 145-173, Enero-Jun.
    16. Pierre-Richard Agénor, 2018. "Health and Knowledge Externalities: Implications for Growth and Public Policy ," Centre for Growth and Business Cycle Research Discussion Paper Series 245, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    17. Emil Tesliuc & Margaret Grosh & Azedine Ouerghi & Carlo del Ninno, 2008. "For Protection and Promotion : The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6582, April.
    18. Sandra Garc√≠a & Jennifer Hill, 2009. "The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Children¬¥s School Achievement: Evidence from Colombia," Documentos CEDE 5403, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:fcnddp:16415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.