Do crowded classrooms crowd out learning? Evidence from the Food for Education Program in Bangladesh. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) discussion paper 149 (May 2003).

In Bangladesh, pervasive poverty has kept generations of families from sending their children to school, and without education, their children’s future will be a distressing echo of their own. Many children from poor families in Bangladesh do not attend school either because their families cannot afford books and other school materials, or because the children contribute to their family’s livelihood and cannot be spared. In some areas, there is also a lack of schools. Among those who enter primary school, only about 40 percent of them complete it. The commendable success of the Food for Education (FFE) program of the Government of Bangladesh has led to larger classes, but do these crowded classrooms crowd out learning? How does FFE work? The Government of Bangladesh launched the FFE program in 1993. The FFE program provided a free monthly ration of foodgrains to poor families in rural areas if their children enrolled in primary school, and maintained an 85 percent attendance rate. The family could consume the grain or sell it and use the cash to meet other expenses. Before the program was terminated in June 2002, the FFE program covered about 27 percent of all primary schools and enrolled about one-third of all primary school students. FFE beneficiary students accounted for about 13 percent of all students in primary schools in Bangladesh. The cost of the program (including the value of foodgrains) was approximately US$37 per beneficiary student per year. A two-step targeting mechanism was used, selecting poor areas, then poor households within those areas. Data from school and household surveys conducted in Bangladesh by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in September-October 2000 were used to evaluate the FFE program. The surveys included primary schools with and without the FFE program, and a cross section of households including program beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. The sample includes 600 households in 60 villages in 30 unions in 10 thanas, and 110 schools in the same 30 unions from which the household