KEY FINDINGS:
Key Finding 1 | The primary education curriculum time allocated to Khmer and Math is not the primary impediments to student learning in Cambodia.
Cambodia’s total intended instruction time (i.e. the curriculum) is relatively short compared to international and regional averages - but the time allocated to literacy & numeracy is relatively high – suggesting this is not the primary impediment to learning outcomes.
However, actual instruction time in Cambodia is considerably lower than the prescribed 728 hours – due to instruction time loss.
There is not enough reliable data on instruction time loss – but several studies suggests that this is relatively high in Cambodia and one estimated that as much as a quarter of intended time might be lost.
Key Finding 2 | Global evidence suggests that the relation between instruction time and student test scores is positive but very weak – and not all countries that switched to full-day schooling succeeded in boosting student test scores.
Students in countries with more instruction time perform (on average) slightly better on literacy and numeracy tests. However – there are many exceptions to this trend, because - instruction time explain only a small portion of variations in student performance across countries.
Some of the lowest OECD performers have some of the highest number of annual instruction hours – whereas some of the highest OECD performers have less annual instruction hours than the OECD average.
Studies on countries switching to a ‘full-day curriculum’ provide some cautionary insights: (1) The positive impact on student test results is not guaranteed; (2) The positive impact is typically modest; (3) Instruction time reforms are typically very costly – as they often increase the cost of the teacher wage bill; and (4) Instruction time reforms take very long to implement - often more than a decade.
Figure 1: Intended instruction time per year for primary education, OECD members and partners 2023 (average, lower, and higher end), and 2022 PISA math scores (average per country).Source: Education at a Glance, OECD 2023, and PISA data 2022.
Key Finding 3 | Different options to increase instruction time vary in terms of cost-efficiency – because they vary in terms of capital investment and additional recurrent spending requirements.
Full-day schooling options (where students go to class both in the morning and afternoon) are more expensive and less efficient (per hour added) as they would require the construction of a considerable number of additional classrooms.
Split day options (adding additional lessons within the morning or the afternoon) as well as adding additional weeks to the school year are more cost efficient as it does not require additional capital investments. The most cost-efficient option to increase time is addressing time loss: reducing teacher absenteeism and unofficial school closures.
Teacher norms and HR regulations are the most important factor determining the affordability of instruction time reforms.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Priority Recommendation 1 | Instruction time reforms should also address instruction time loss.
Conduct a study to quantify instruction time loss and identify the underlying causes and potential measures to address teacher absenteeism and unofficial school closures.
Combine investments in additional instruction time (adding lessons to the school day) with measures to reduce teacher absenteeism, tardiness, and school closures.
Priority Recommendation 2 | Because reforms are expensive and their impact uncertain – adopt a cautious, iterative, and long-term approach.
Pilot-test reform options and robustly measure their impact on student learning – before implementation across a large number of schools.
Priority Recommendation 3 | Revise and enforce teacher HR regulations
Clarify the curriculum, teaching norms, and HR regulations and strictly enforce compliance — ensuring that the minimum required in-class teaching hours - and hours worked outside of the class - are met.
Reduce the prevalence of secondary jobs and consider increasing teaching time per teacher – to limit the costs of reforms and facilitate implementation.
Priority Recommendation 4 | Continue to invest in the quality and effectiveness of instruction time.
This study highlights the importance of the quality and effectiveness of instruction. The MoEYS should continue to invest in quality (e.g. by promoting early-grade reading and math) and effectiveness (e.g. by promoting teaching-at-the-right-level) as these have shown to improve student learning outcomes.