Paper: The Limits of a “Great Buy”: What Rigorous Evidence Reveals about Teaching at the Right Level
Abstract
Targeting teaching instruction by learning level rather than grade is an instructional approach that assesses students’ current skills, groups them accordingly, and targets instruction to their actual learning needs. Originating in India and now widely implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, this approach has become known as Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL). The Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (GEEAP, 2023) has promoted this approach as a highly cost-effective “great buy.” This review takes a closer look at whether the accumulated evidence supports that claim.
We synthesize rigorous experimental evidence on TaRL from India, Kenya, Ghana, Madagascar, Côte d’Ivoire, and Colombia, drawing on studies cited in the three GEEAP reports and more recent evaluations that meet similar standards of causal identification. Across thirteen experimental studies, the evidence is mixed: 25 statistically significant results are contrasted by 21 null effects, with most estimated impacts below 0.2 standard deviations.
The largest gains come from short, intensive, NGO-led learning camps in India, which produced substantial short-term improvements in basic literacy and numeracy. However, similar designs implemented by the same organisation using the same materials generated no effects in other settings, underscoring the difficulty of replication. Outside India, TaRL-style interventions typically yield modest gains, particularly when implemented through government systems.
Across contexts, impacts are strongest when instruction is delivered by trained facilitators or volunteers, supported by close supervision, dedicated instructional time, and sustained coaching. Gains are concentrated in basic skills, with limited evidence of progression to higher-order competencies or long-term persistence.
Overall, the evidence suggests that TaRL can improve foundational learning under certain conditions, but its effectiveness is uneven and highly sensitive to implementation and context. Claims of a universally “strong” evidence base should therefore be treated with caution.