In many low and lower middle income countries around the world, large scale purchases of computing devices for use in schools are just beginning to happen. Given that efforts of this sort have occurred in other education systems for manyyears (and in some 'highly developed' countries, fordecades), there is a real opportunity for countries new to such efforts to learn from past mistakes made by others -- and not to repeat them.
Let's leave aside, for the moment, the fundamental question of whether or not a country should be investing its scarce resources in, for example, a new program to roll out laptops or tablets to all of its students or teachers. Let's say, for better or for worse, that this decision has already been made (and hopefully that it was a good decision!).
And: Let's leave for another discussion a topic regularly explored on the World Bank's EduTech blog: What might it mean for these devices to be used 'effectively'? Instead, what if we ask:
What are some of the 'little details' that actually can actually have a big impact on whether the devices supplied to schools are actually used at all?
Past posts on the World Bank's EduTech blog have attempted to document and analyze many of these 'little details'. Here's one that we haven't explored before:
Who owns the computer equipment in schools, who pays for the stuff that gets broken, who decides, and how is this information communicated?
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions, of course. As with so many things in life, context is king. Tolstoy famously wrote that "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." In my experience, the exact opposite is often true when it comes to education systems attempting to introduce new technologies into schools for the first time: All (eventually) unhappy education systems are (too often) alike; every happy education system is happy in its own way.
Here's a quick example of one education system that quickly became 'unhappy' with the initial results of its high profile effort to provide laptops to teachers. I'll call this country 'Laptopia', the generic name I use in training exercises when referring to real-life examples where little would be named by identifying the country specifically. (For what it's worth: When I shared the story below with two colleagues, both of them were sure they knew to which country I was referring. Both named different countries, and both were wrong.)
“Experiments are not unpopular, unpopular policies are unpopular” – Mislavsky et al. on whether people object to companies running experiments. “Additionally, participants found experiments with deception (e.g., one shipping speed was promised, another was actually delivered), unequal outcomes (e.g., some participants get $5 for attending the gym, others get $10), and lack of consent, to be acceptable, as long as all conditions were themselves acceptable.” – caveat to note- results are based on asking MTurk subjects (and one sample of university workers) whether they thought it was ok for companies to do this.
In the past few years, knowledge sharing has moved to the center of global development as a third pillar complementing financial and technical assistance. Agenda 2030 calls for enhancing “knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms,” while the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development encourages knowledge sharing in sectors contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.
Just three weeks after becoming Minister of Education in Peru, my team and I received the results from the 2012 round of PISA. Peru was ranked last. Not next to last, not bottom 10%. It was last.
Education, which never made headlines in the country, was on the front pages. For some people in the media, the fact that PISA was only administered to a subset of rich and middle-income countries around the world was not important, that was just a footnote. For them, Peruvian students were the worst in the world.
The challenges of electoral democracy are becoming increasingly visible worldwide. Elite capture, corruption and patronage are serious concerns, and the legitimacy of some elections has come under critical scrutiny. This has led to a revival of the idea of direct democracy – giving power directly to groups of people to make collective decisions.
Our interviewers are still in the field, we need more time to complete the survey, could you extend our server for two more months? We receive such requests every day. Why do so many of our users fail to estimate the timing of their fieldwork?
Survey Solutions is a free platform for data collection developed by the World Bank and used by hundreds of agencies and firms in 143 countries. Many users of the Survey Solutions host data on free cloud servers provided by the World Bank. A user requests a server by filling in a form where he indicates the duration of the planned survey, the number of cases to be collected, and provides other relevant information. We impose no restrictions on how long a user can use the servers. Any survey end date is accepted. Over the last six years we have accumulated data on more than 2,000 surveys. We use information about surveys that collected 50 or more cases for this analysis.
How well can people conducting surveys follow the survey schedule?
The Articles of Agreements were signed by His Excellency Fathulla Jameel, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Maldives to the United Nations. At that time, Maldives had a GDP per capita of just over $200 and had achieved independence only 13 years prior.
The project helped mechanize fishing craft, established repair centers, and installed navigational aids to increase the safety of fishing operations.
Those present for the signing from left to right, Said El-Naggar, Executive Director of the World Bank for Maldives, His Excellency Ahamed Zaki, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Maldives to the United Nations, and Robert Picciottto, Projects Director for South Asia.
Before diving into a new year, I like to take some time for reflection. This past year, I’ve seen a real shift in how public-private partnerships (PPPs) are perceived and understood—both their benefits and risks. Many governments are considering PPPs to help them deliver infrastructure and services their citizens need. They also better understand the complexity of PPPs as a procurement method and are more strategic in when to use them.