1.3 – Unique and Proprietary Bridge platform, technology and methodology

Compared to other schools, Bridge has proven successful in delivering strong learning outcomes to students, and doing so irrespective of family income, education, or language state. This section will review in detail the evidence which shows:

• Students in classrooms using the Bridge platform in Lagos, Nigeria outperformed their peers in traditionally-managed public schools by a wide margin, 1.38 and 0.86 standard deviations in literacy and math, respectively. This represents an estimated two or more

additional years of instruction in literacy and roughly one and one-half additional years

of instruction in math. • These gains in Lagos, Nigeria were found to remarkably be driven by equity. Bridge

students’ performance on literacy and numeracy assessments are quite similar

irrespective of parental income, education, or home language. This implies that the

Bridge approach overcomes the inherent disadvantages typically challenging students from low income households and with parents with less formal education. • Students in public schools in Edo State implementing Bridge platform gained more than 70% of a year’s worth of instructional gains in just one semester, were 45% more likely to work a full day, 54% more likely to give positive feedback to pupils, and 55% less likely to use corporal punishment. • In Bridge-managed public schools in Liberia, research showed that in a single year, students in these classrooms gained one additional full year of learning compared to

their peers in traditionally-managed public schools.

• In East Africa, studies showed that students taught using the Bridge platform performed higher on national exams than their peers in traditionally-managed public schools – gains equivalent to over 32% more schooling in English and 13% more schooling in maths.

The Global Context

Education outcomes tend to be strongly influenced by socio-economic factors. For example, there is a strong correlation between primary school net attendance rate and the share of population below the poverty line (Figure 2.1). Furthermore, there is significant academic evidence that children in less affluent households are more likely to achieve lower academic outcomes; and that income has a causal effect (rather than only a correlation) on children’s learning outcomes2. Improving learning outcomes for all children, irrespective of affluence levels, is a challenge for many governments. The performance of countries with comparable levels of economic development on education indicators varies wildly. This is largely due to the actions of governments and their policy approach to improvements in education. For example, in Malawi, 1992-1994 government policies abolished school fees and provided schooling materials free of charge, increasing primary enrolment rates drastically but without the right investment in teacher quality, did not achieve the attainment uplift they had anticipated. “it is clear that the policy (had) implications on the quality of schooling being supplied to the larger population of children since the newly hired teachers were untrained and may not have been qualified instructors”3.When designing or assessing educational policies, it is hence crucial to not only consider the impact on enrolment,

2 Does Money Affect Children’s Outcomes? An Update (Kerris Cooper & Kitty Stewart, 2017) 3 The Long-Term Effects of Universal Primary Education: Evidence from Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda (Carina Omoeva & Wael Moussa, 2018) but also to investigate the impact on the attainment of enrolled children, taking into consideration contextual information such as gender, level of affluence, level of teacher training etc.

Figure 2.1 – Primary school attendance rate vs. population under poverty line, % (UNESCO)

2.2 – Bridge International Academies are Teaching Students in Low Socio-Economic Communities

Bridge International works across Africa and Asia in countries facing both socio-economic and education challenges (cf. Figures 2.2 and 2.3). Through the work that Bridge has delivered in developing countries to date, they have demonstrated that their approach not only teaches, but drives differential improvements even in low socio-economic communities.

Figure 2.2: Socioeconomic Comparison: Bridge operating countries, 20174

Number of Bridge students Human Development Index (HDI)

rank value

GNI per capita (2011 PPP $) Life expectancy at birth Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) Population ages 0-14

Uganda 162 0.516 1,658 60.2 49 48%

445,000 Kenya 142 0.59 2,961 67.3 45.6 41% Nigeria 283,000 157 0.532 5,231 53.9 100.2 44% Liberia 23,000 181 0.435 667 63 74.7 42% China 16,000 86 0.752 15,270 76.4 9.3 18% India 900 130 0.64 6,353 68.8 39.4 28%

4 Source: UNESCO