Multiple presentations also suggested that low learning contributes to dropout, showing that low learning is not just a “learning” problem, but also a “schooling attainment” problem. A presentation by Rafael de Hoyos on a scholarship program in Mexico found that scholarships had zero impact on secondary school graduation rates or on science or math test scores. The most plausible explanation the authors found was that many eligible students did not seem to have the minimum learning level needed to successfully face the requirements of upper secondary school. Their recommendation was that such scholarship programs should be accompanied by remedial education (or, presumably, by improved instruction in earlier grades so remediation isn’t necessary). 

In a presentation using Young Lives data from five countries (Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Peru, and Vietnam), Abhijeet Singh showed that test scores at age 12 (roughly Grade 6) are “massively predictive” of years of schooling completed at age 22, indicating that low learners are more likely to drop out. He suggested that building foundational skills in primary school may lead to higher schooling attainment. And Muralidharan, in his presentation, stated that the low learning observed at baseline and in the control groups in his studies can help explain dropout: “It’s because going to school day after day and not understanding anything is a miserable experience." 

The link between low learning and dropout is important for efforts aimed at getting more kids in school and for longer. If children are dropping out because they aren’t learning, then pushing for them to stay in school longer (such as through secondary completion) may do little to improve learning outcomes. Efforts that improve learning, on the other hand, could be “win-win” and improve both learning and attainment, as children who otherwise would have dropped out are enticed to stay in.

At RISE, we’ve been thinking for a while about findings like these and what they imply for making education systems coherent for learning. 

Taken together, such findings strongly suggest that education systems need to prioritize something we’ve dubbed universal, early, conceptual and procedural mastery of basic skills. (If that phrase isn’t a mouthful, I don’t know what is, but each word is in there for a reason. We’ll work on a decent acronym). 

Taking the phrase apart, here’s what we mean: 

• Universal–because every child must be able to learn, and international goals all aim for universal skills. 
• Early–evidence is increasingly showing that children who fall behind in the early years rarely catch up, so basics must be mastered early on. 
• Conceptual–ensuring children understand concepts that can be used in later learning and application, not just engage in rote learning. 
• Procedural–ensuring at the same time that children gain fluency in the procedures of solving arithmetic problems and reading texts, as conceptual and procedural skills are complementary and build on each other.
• Mastery–that children learn the skill to a standard of proficiency (leaving open for now what that standard should be). 
• Basic skills–literacy and numeracy are foundational for later skills, and if children miss these they will continue to struggle with (or miss out entirely on) later learning.

While these may seem obvious, they often aren’t top priorities. 

Universalizing secondary school completion, teaching 21^st Century skills, providing vocational training, and reducing the “digital divide” appear frequently in lists of education priorities. Yet none of these will produce much fruit if they aren’t preceded by UECPMBS (and yes, we need a better acronym).