A new report demonstrates the connection between maternal and child education, finding that mothers’ literacy programs boost their children’s math scores and their own sense of empowerment.
The international community is on track to reach the Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal primary education by 2015. Currently, over 90 percent of primary school age children are enrolled in school worldwide. Unfortunately, the quality of children’s education in the developing world has not grown in line with enrollment rates. For example, a 2012 report from the ASER Centre in India finds that while 96 percent of school-age children in rural India are enrolled in school, only 38 percent have sufficient skills to read a simple children’s story. As developing countries progress toward universal primary school enrollment, policymakers face the ongoing challenge of improving the quality of education.
While public education systems in the developing world often suffer from numerous structural and financial challenges, the low level of education among parents may also be a significant impediment to children’s educational success. In a new paper, “The Impact of Mother Literacy and Participation Programs on Child Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in India,” Rukmini Banerji, James Berry, and Marc Shotland examine whether interventions targeting mothers’ literacy improve their children’s education outcomes. They find that mothers’ literacy programs boost children’s math scores, increase mothers’ participation in their children’s learning, and bolster women’s sense of empowerment.
The authors partnered with Pratham, a non-governmental organization in India, to conduct a randomized control trial evaluating the impact of mothers’ literacy programs on their children’s education in Bihar and Rajasthan, two Indian states with low levels of literacy among women. The organization randomly selected over 8,500 mothers from 480 villages to participate in the trial. Based on their random assignment into one of four groups, Pratham offered participating women either: (1) adult literacy classes, (2) training materials on how to enhance their children’s learning, or (3) a combination of both interventions. Women in a fourth group did not receive any intervention and served as a control group.
To measure the impact of Pratham’s programs, the authors first collected baseline data from the selected mothers and their children through household surveys and standardized tests. After one year, they collected post-intervention data using the same instruments, as well as additional metrics to evaluate women’s empowerment.
Banerji, Berry, and Shotland find that all three treatments improved children’s math scores in comparison to the control group. However, only the combined intervention increased children’s reading scores. Mothers in each of the treatment groups also reported increased involvement in their children’s education, including talking to their child about their studies and reviewing their homework assignments. Additionally, women in each treatment groups had higher math and reading scores after a year of program participation. Notably, all three treatments also had a positive effect on women’s sense of empowerment, which the authors measured through metrics such as their involvement in household decision-making and their beliefs about the value of their own education.
The authors note, however, that the treatments had no effect on children’s educational behaviors, such as regular attendance and enrollment rates. They also admit that since it is likely that young children accompanied their mothers to literacy classes, they cannot rule out the possibility that the treatment effect is, in fact, due to their exposure to the program itself, rather than result of their mothers’ education. Moreover, since the authors collected post-intervention data one year after the program’s inception, their findings do not indicate whether the positive effects are sustainable over time.
Given the need for mechanisms that improve the quality of education in the developing world, Banerji, Berry, and Shotland’s evaluation is both relevant and timely. Mothers’ literacy and education programs could supplement ongoing education initiatives for children—Pratham’s Mothers’ Literacy program, for example, relies almost entirely on materials designed to increase children’s literacy. The authors state that their analysis “shows that literacy and participation programs can impact both mother and child learning.” They conclude, “This is encouraging evidence for policymakers looking to improve adult and child learning, as well as the education environment in the home.”
As policymakers and development actors move closer to achieving their goal of universal primary education, they should begin to look toward improving the quality of this education. Investing in mothers’ human capital could be a valuable tool to meet this new challenge.