Wide Angle

In 2006, WIDE ANGLE sought out education experts from around the World — searching for answers to a few hard questions. Why are so many children still out of school? Why are girls so often left behind? How does a country’s economic situation affect a child’s chances at school — for better or worse? From Boston to Bucharest, New York to Delhi, we spoke with the people working on behalf of the world’s uneducated children. Click on a name below to read what they had to tell us.

David Bloom

David Bloom is Professor of Economics and Demography at the Harvard School of Public Health. Bloom is also the co-leader of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ UBASE (Universal Basic and Secondary Education) project, along with Professor Joel Cohen, of Columbia University and Rockefeller University. UBASE studies the rationale, the means, and the consequences of providing an education to every child in the world. Bloom lives in Massachusetts.

Economist, Harvard University

“Investing in the education of children is probably the world’s highest yielding public investment.”

This interview was conducted in New York City by Pamela Hogan, Series Producer for Wide Angle.

David Bloom: There are almost 100 million kids of primary-school age who should be in school but are not. In this day and age, I consider that absolutely shameful. One hundred million kids are not getting basic skills of literacy and numeracy. They’re going to be, and feel, individually less empowered. They’re going to have less confidence in their ability to make a difference — to their own lives, as well as to their families, communities, and national economies.

Pamela Hogan: So when you say 100 million kids not in school, are you talking about young children? Who are these children?

David Bloom: I am speaking mainly of 6 to 11 year olds. I am speaking of kids who reside mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia. And I am speaking more about girls than boys. There is definitely a gender gap in terms of lack of enrollment in school, especially as one reaches the higher grades.

Pamela Hogan: And why is that?

David Bloom: Culture, religion, and, of course, gender bias, play a role. And a lot of it has to do with economics. Many parents don’t want to invest in girls, because women earn less than men and because girl children are more likely to leave the family when they come of age, which means the parents don’t reap the returns from those investments. When parents look at it this way, they often choose to devote more of their resources to educating boys.

It’s an especially unfortunate situation because the social benefits of education are much greater from educating girls. Educated women tend to have fewer children. They also tend to be much more conscious about the health of their children and of other family members. These are some of the social benefits from educating girls — above and beyond the higher incomes the girls might earn.

Pamela Hogan: And what do we know about the benefits of educating a child? Does that translate into economic returns? Even if it’s just a few years of school?

David Bloom: For every additional year of schooling that a child receives, their productivity and earnings goes up an average of 15 percent.

Pamela Hogan: It’s hard to understand why this issue is flying under the radar. If it’s so important, it seems like it should get more attention.

David Bloom: Investing in the education of children is probably the world’s highest yielding public investment. There’s nothing closer to a no-brainer than investing in the schooling of kids, especially girls, because of the myriad and sizable benefits that result.

Pam Hogan: Do you regard this as a global crisis? What is the urgency?

David Bloom: Crisis is a perfect word to characterize the situation. We live in a world in which an estimated 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. And we know that education is one of the most likely paths out of the poverty trap. But still we let 100 million kids not go to primary school. We leave them on the streets or at home.

Pamela Hogan: So are you saying that universal education is a solution for global poverty?

David Bloom: It’s not sufficient in and of itself. But it will go a long way toward alleviating poverty by creating a younger generation that is better able to stand on its own two feet. When people are educated, they tend to be more productive. When people are more productive, they tend to earn more income. And when people earn more income, they have a better chance to escape or avoid poverty. And what’s true for individuals is also true when you aggregate individuals to the level of national economies and heap on other consequences that tend to accompany better-educated populations — like better-functioning democracies. So education (along with good health, I might add) is very much the Holy Grail with respect to the alleviation of poverty and the promotion of well-being in developing countries. Education would create value even if it did not enhance income. The fact that it does is icing on the cake.

The key question is not whether education is a path out of poverty and toward a better life. I think we may finally take that as given. The real question is how to mobilize the political will and the financial muscle to promote more and better schooling.

Angelique Kidjo

Born in Benin and educated in France, singer Angelique Kidjo currently serves as a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador. Her music, spanning the traditions and languages of several continents, has been nominated for three Grammy Awards. She lives in Brooklyn, New York.

Singer & UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador

“The next generation has to be educated to give a chance to Africa before they are corrupted by the system in place for them.”

This interview was conducted in New York City by Judy Katz, producer and writer for Back to School.

Angelique Kidjo: Education is the key, really, for the African people to be able to play a role, an important role, for themselves. For protecting themselves. There is so much we can learn from Africa that is lost today-that is taken away from us because we don’t have the education to understand.

I will give an example. Shea butter comes from Africa mainly. We use it to cook, for our hair, for our body, for many different things. We never ever thought about how much money is made by contributing to the cosmetics business in the world. So education will allow us to sell our shea butter competitively.

That’s why I’m so involved in education. That’s why I’m involved with UNICEF. Because we have to start with the kids. The next generation has to be educated to give a chance to Africa before they are corrupted by the system in place for them. [They need] to know that education is their responsibility-as the next politician, as the next doctor-to make the right choices.

Judy Katz: You grew up in Benin, and you were saying in your family all nine kids went to school. And it sounds like it was out of the ordinary. Did most of your girlfriends go to school? And what are the common reasons for dropping out? What are the obstacles, culturally and generally? Why is it so hard for girls to go to school?

Angelique Kidjo: First, I would say if the parents are not educated, they don’t see the benefits of going to school. Secondly, most of the people [in Benin] are poor. So when the girl stays home, it’s a help for the mother to help raise the other brothers and sisters, to help do home work, and to cook. And the third thing is that there is a belief in Africa-not only in Benin-that if you send a girl to school she will speak back to her husband. So it’s those three major things.

The thing is also money. Because school is not free. And when you’re poor, you think about how much it’s going to cost you, year after year, to put your child in school. And another reason also is the abuse of the girls in school. Some parents are willing to do whatever it takes, sending the girls to school. Yet some teachers will take advantage of that as soon as they find out that the background of the child is very poor-that if they rape that girl, nothing’s going to happen to them. They’ll take advantage of it.

So it demands a huge belief from every family to send the kid to school and to stand by it.

Judy Katz: But Nanavi, who’s so quiet and kind of shy-do you think an education is going to do something for her?

Angelique Kidjo: Education’s going to do more for her than anything else. Education is going to give her confidence. There will be a turning point where she will be confident in her education and what she has learned so far and how she can implement that education in her daily life. And, boom, the switch is going to happen.

Even if she’s not outspoken, you will see in her way of standing, her way of working, her way of speaking, step by step, that she’s going to have more confidence.

For me, one of the things that really makes me think that we’re going to have to work harder in the poor countries is… to change the minds of the men who think about girls as less than human beings. They treat their herd, their animals, better than they treat their girls. And that is something that is completely wrong.

Why in other countries, developed countries, do they know that the girl’s going to school is a chance for the family? Is a chance for her to have a better life? Why can’t we think like that in Kenya and in Benin or in India?

Judy Katz: But when we think more globally about education and developing countries versus developed, industrialized countries, what are the other challenges in the third world?

Angelique Kidjo: The poor countries have more kids because those kids help home-in the home work and the farm work. The rich countries can afford having one child and can give everything to the child because they go to work-they get the work in an office. They work behind a computer. They have a car. They can go from point A to point B. It’s development.

Not to diminish the fact that sending kids into school in rich countries is not important. It is important. But their counterparts in poor countries have to go to school also. Because if this place is to become a global village, the next generation has to have an education for the situation to change in poor countries. Because the poor governments, if the population is educated, cannot continue doing the politics they are doing. Education is the only thing that can help and allow democracy to exist in poor countries.

Eddah Gachukia

Eddah Gachukia is founder of the Forum for African Women Educationalists, an organization dedicated to furthering the education of women and girls in Africa. Now an international consultant on issues of gender, development, and education, Gachukia formerly served as a National Member of the Kenyan parliament, representing women’s issues, and as Kenya’s advisor to UNESCO. She lives in Nairobi.

Forum For African Women Educationists

“Without education you can’t really raise the quality of life of the people.”

This interview was conducted in Nairobi, Kenya by Frederick Rendina, Field Producer for the Kenya segment of Back to School.

Frederick Rendina: Let’s talk about free primary education in Kenya. We were here three years ago; everyone was very excited that it started. And a million new students came into the system. How are things going now? Is the fun-the honeymoon phase-over?

Eddah Gachukia: The honeymoon phase is not over. Because every new year brings in a lot more children. Like we said in 2003, the number that enrolled was 1.3 million. We calculated as a nation that there were still 1.7 million children missing. That really was a challenge. These children were at all levels of the education system. It’s not like they were enrolling in grade one. They were enrolling at all levels, because many of the children had dropped out at different levels due to poverty.

When the initiative came they all flocked in. We had street children. We had young mothers coming back with babies on their backs. Little boys with glue, sniffing glue. It was a very big challenge. There was no space because our classrooms were already full anyway. So it was overwhelming. It is still overwhelming. But I think what we would call the honeymoon is still on. We are enjoying the fact that many more children than would have had access before are now having access to primary education. We are very excited about that.

And I must say the introduction of free primary education was a boost most to girls and women. It was the best thing that could have happened. This is because once you open the schools for all children it means that you now have time to focus on other factors that have been hindering girls’ education in the country.

In Kenya and other African countries, already the movement had started to really promote girls’ education: really convincing parents that educating girls has benefits that they will never get from educating boys. And, you know, winning that battle! Convincing governments that they have to go beyond just opening schools. A lot of PR needs to be undertaken with parents. And particularly in the condemnation of traditional practices that have been identified as hindering girls’ education. So it’s not just the women’s organizations working on this issue, it is the government itself and non-government organizations.

Frederick Rendina: Where are we now? There are still overcrowded classrooms and a huge shortage of teachers. How are these problems going to be fixed in the future?

Eddah Gachukia: The fiscal issues will not be solved for quite a while. I don’t see how possible it is for the government to hire enough teachers today for all the children that have enrolled. What we must do in the education sector generally is to combine whatever resources we have, materials and so on, with innovation. It is not fair to the teacher. But in a moment of crisis we have to make do with what we have.

Frederick Rendina: Could you speak a little bit about how AIDS and the number of orphans have effected education in Kenya?

Eddah Gachukia: AIDS has been a real, terrible phenomenon. In Kenya we prefer to call it an epidemic that has affected all sectors of our development. In the education sector we have seen a lot of orphans, a growth in the number of orphans in the country. Children who can no longer access education even when it’s free, because the children are having to take care of themselves. Or, you know, the oldest child has to take care of the younger siblings. It’s an incredible phenomenon that no nation is ever prepared for.

We’ve seen children become heads of families, in which case they cannot combine school with the taking care of their families. We have seen rising levels of poverty, so that even the uniform that many of our schools demand of all children, no family like that afford. Then of course, even among the adults, it’s taken its toll on the teaching profession-if you find in a school three or four teachers away on sick leave, that impacts quality. So it does effect education in a very fundamental way.

Frederick Rendina: Do you still view education as the magic bullet for poverty? Will education solve the issue of poverty in Kenya and in Africa in general in your opinion?

Eddah Gachukia: It’s difficult to prove. Especially in a country where you cannot link education to employment, unfortunately. But you and I know that without education you can’t really raise the quality of life of the people. We are talking about knowledge acquisition: the fact that you can take pamphlets on health to the rural areas and mothers can read about the importance of immunization. To supplement what the mass media is providing, I think it’s very, very important that everybody gets education, not from a monetary point of view, but regarding quality of life.

But for me I look at it from a mother’s perspective. And definitely education does perform that magic. If you’re talking about family planning, about the health of children, about, you know, the value of immunization, nutrition and so on-there are no two ways about it. Education makes all the difference.

Vimala Ramachandran

A head researcher at Delhi’s Educational Resource Unit, Vimala Ramachandran leads a consulting group studying education, health, human rights, and sustainable development in India. Focusing on education and child development, Ramachandran specializes in designing social programs to improve the lives-and livelihoods-of Indian women. She lives in Jaipur, India.

Educational Resource Unit

“To get a nine-year-old, or a ten-year-old girl to work through the day and send her to school late in the evening is a kind of injustice which we have to start fighting against.”

This interview was conducted in Jaipur, India by Hervé Cohen, Field Producer for the India segment of Back to School.

Vimala Ramachandran: To get a nine-year-old or a ten-year-old girl to work through the day and send her to school late in the evening is a kind of injustice which we have to start fighting against. It may take a long time. It’s a dream. And I do feel that unless people are very clear about how to go about it, we cannot realize that dream.

Hervé Cohen: When you look at the situation in areas where there is no night school, don’t you think it’s worse than the areas with one? Where there is night school, at least there is maybe a taste for knowledge. A taste for education. Is there an improvement in that sense?

Vimala Ramachandran: No. The improvement is that 20 years ago, all villages did not have day schools. Today almost every village in Rajasthan has a day school. I think that is where the improvement has taken place.

These are not only day schools run by the government; there are also day schools run by private individuals. And if you just look at the census of India, there has been almost a 20 percent increase in female literacy rates in Rajasthan. And, that has happened because of the number of day schools that have opened.

Night schools are really an apology for education. A child who has worked through the day: she’s tired. There is no electricity. She can barely see what she’s writing. Go there in winter and see: It’s dark. It’s cold. It’s a terrible situation for a child to study.

So I don’t think the night schools are adding any great value. What is adding value in society today are the day schools.

Vimala Ramachandran: What is tragic is that this is happening in Tilonia [where Neeraj lives]. Tilonia is a place where the social work center has been working now for 30 years. Here is a social organization which has spent millions and millions of dollars on helping people become conscious about their rights. They fought for minimum wages. They’ve been fighting for the individual’s right to information. And in 30 years you cannot change attitudes of people in a village in which you are located to send their girls to school? To treat boys and girls equally? I think the failure is not just of the parents. The failure is also of this NGO which is working there. I mean, there is no excuse at all. You’ve been there for 30 years! What is the use of an NGO being there for 30 years that we cannot change a small thing like this? At least a beginning could have been made!

Yes, people in Rajasthan say that educating a girl is like watering your neighbor’s garden-you’re not going to reap the benefits of it. But, that’s not an argument. The government itself is now committed to girls’ education. The society is committed to girls’ education. There have been people in Tilonia who’ve come out on the streets demanding rights on every other matter, whether it’s wages, whether it’s information. So, why can’t they come out and convince their own villages to send girls to day school? It’s inexcusable.

Hervé Cohen: Have you noticed in some villages in India that the day school has made huge improvements for the rural families?

Vimala Ramachandran: In those parts of the country where economic progress has been fairly good, people have realized that education is very valuable. Education is valuable because it helps you, at least, to read. To notice boards. To be able to at least negotiate in a situation where you are in a little bit of a position of strength, rather than being told that you are an illiterate.

So, across the country there is a realization that education is a positive input into every human being’s development. But, I must say, in those parts of the country, for example, in South India or in Western India, the situation is much better than, in say, parts of North India. And, in North India the situation is perhaps the worst in Rajasthan.

Hervé Cohen: To go back to the night schools specifically, don’t you think the night school has something to offer to Neeraj, precisely because we know that probably, to be realistic, her family would not have sent her to day school in any case?

Vimala Ramachandran: See, if you put it in that way and say that Neeraj will have no access at all to education, as opposed to a night school, obviously I will say a night school is better than having nothing at all. And obviously, because the night school is run by the NGO, it’s being run regularly. Maybe the teacher’s very committed. Maybe he’s trying to teach the children with a lot of love. So, obviously that’s better than nothing. I have no doubts about that. And in a place like Rajasthan maybe one tends to feel that the situation is so terrible that even these little things are important. Yes, at one level, maybe they are.

But, at another level I think it would be much better if the NGO had run a day school instead of a night school. And if they had themselves convinced the parents to send this child to a day school.

In India, education is now a fundamental right. And I think every single social activist group has to go and argue and try and create an environment for education of girls. Using your child through the day and just sending her to night school: I think for me that is unacceptable. Especially when the brothers are going to a regular school.

It is not impossible. And the law is on your side now. And the public conscience is on your side now. I don’t think anybody will tell you that no, no girl should go to school. So when the public conscience is on your side, and when the lawyer’s on your side, I think it is possible to work with parents to make it happen.

Ana Maria Sandi The World Bank’s officer for social programming in Europe and Central Asia, Ana Maria Sandi was previously the head of the United Nations Development Fund’s Women in Development Center. Sandi has also directed the education department of Romania’s Institute of Educational Sciences and served as Scientific Secretary of Romania’s International Center of Methodology for Future and Development Studies. She lives in Bucharest.

World Bank Education Specialist

“It’s like a continuous catching up-to be prepared to have your graduates able to compete with others.”

This interview was conducted in Bucharest, Romania by Carina Tautu, Field Producer for the Romania segment of Back to School.

Carina Tautu: What kind of reforms is Romania trying to implement in its approach to education?

Ana Maria Sandi: Romania is going to join the European Union very soon. And in terms of human capital, since there will be a lot of competition, children will need to be prepared to face competition from people from other countries in the EU.

Now Romanians are good at adapting and those in the upper layers of society have demonstrated they are able to face this competition. But, we are talking now about the whole country.

Look at Raluca! I am sure she will succeed. She already has the spark. She comes from Bucharest. She’s trained in a good school. The problem is about the others, who are in smaller towns, in rural areas-remote ones. For them it will be a challenge.

Carina Tautu: What was the education like when you were in school?

Ana Maria Sandi: That’s a long, long time ago, I would say! I was lucky, because I was in school with teachers who were teachers before the change: before we were invaded by the Soviets. The teachers were teaching us what they knew they should teach, but on the other hand we had this new Soviet push. Like every single discovery was made by a Soviet, or a Russian! So we were used to-since the early 1980s-to double standards-to doublespeak and everything like that.

Carina Tautu: And how do you feel about your daughter’s generation? Do you notice a difference?

Ana Maria Sandi: I am not sure what would have happened with another generation under a totalitarian regime. [Students now] are maybe better equipped. Their expectations are being shaped by all sorts of sources outside the school, so sometimes they are more forward thinking than the rest of the system.

Take computers for example. Students are much better at computers than teachers. And they are more eager to get to information from various sources-to compare. So they are a force. In a sense they are a force for changing the system.

Carina Tautu: So is education at a critical point now, in Romania?

Ana Maria Sandi: It’s always extremely important. Education is extremely important. And in this particular context, as Romania is changing-and continues to change from its recent totalitarian regime into a democratic society-it will be faced with different challenges. It will enter into competition with well established democracies with systems that reformed themselves over time.

It’s like a continuous catching up-to be prepared to have your graduates able to compete with others.