Schools and Education

I read Greg Mortenson's Stones to Schools less than a year ago and was impressed by the simple idea that building schools in remote parts of the world was a far effective development tool than many acknowledge. On my part, the theory offered by Greg that building schools in Afghanistan was a far more effective weapon for female child emancipation and longer term peace than the full-scale war that was the alternative, seemed plausible. I thought that while one cannot educate everyone to pacifism, this theory had some merit relative to available alternatives.

Annie Lowrie of the Slate Magazine has put forward this very incisive argument against that theory and one that goes beyond attacking the author. the argument goes that physical construction of schools is not the equivalent of providing an education and therefore the obsession with building schools is itself wrong-headed. The essence of this critique is that while donations are easier to marshal in the name of putting up structures, it is often the provision of education that is a far bigger challenge. Informed by randomized evaluations, the alternative seems to urge that construction should be replaced with payment of superior teachers, de-worming of school children and separating learners into classes that take account of ability.