I agree that sending kids to ineffective schools isn’t an effective thing to do! I don’t this this is what any EA organisations recommend though. While there have been some studies that suggest deworming improves school attendance, I understand that this is not commonly believed to be a big effect anymore.
GiveWell recommends deworming charities because of evidence that deworming could have a positive impact on income in the long term. You can read more here https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/deworming—I think this is interesting reading because while GiveWell are pretty uncertain about the impact of deworming, they still think in expectation it is a highly cost effective thing to fund because it is just so cheap to deworm kids.
[I’m not an expert in this at all—just a GiveWell fan, so someone else might be able to share more nuanced information].
“Ineffective” school usually means school that is ineffective for learning, but I think school that is ineffective for learning can be effective in other ways, for example effective in providing daycare services to parents.
In that case, I think an effective thing to do is to plan transition from existing schools to daycare centers, eliminating teaching and focusing on caring. One could destroy all schools and build daycare centers instead, and destroying all schools has emotional appeal to me, but transitioning is probably cheaper.
I agree that sending kids to ineffective schools isn’t an effective thing to do! I don’t this this is what any EA organisations recommend though. While there have been some studies that suggest deworming improves school attendance, I understand that this is not commonly believed to be a big effect anymore.
GiveWell recommends deworming charities because of evidence that deworming could have a positive impact on income in the long term. You can read more here https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/deworming—I think this is interesting reading because while GiveWell are pretty uncertain about the impact of deworming, they still think in expectation it is a highly cost effective thing to fund because it is just so cheap to deworm kids.
[I’m not an expert in this at all—just a GiveWell fan, so someone else might be able to share more nuanced information].
“Ineffective” school usually means school that is ineffective for learning, but I think school that is ineffective for learning can be effective in other ways, for example effective in providing daycare services to parents.
In that case, I think an effective thing to do is to plan transition from existing schools to daycare centers, eliminating teaching and focusing on caring. One could destroy all schools and build daycare centers instead, and destroying all schools has emotional appeal to me, but transitioning is probably cheaper.