For interventions, we begin with the sample of impact evaluation studies in the areas with the largest number of measured learning outcomes in a systematic review (Snilstveit et al. 2015): structured pedagogy (e.g., introducing new lesson content and providing teachers with training on how to teach), computer‐assisted learning, and school based management. We only include studies with any measure of the three building blocks of the STEP literacy assessment – word meaning, sentence processing and basic passage comprehension – to ensure the comparability to the extent possible, and sort them by standardized effect size.<sup>12</sup> Forty‐nine of the total 63 reading outcomes analyzed in this paper are from impact evaluations that employ randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the rest are from studies using either difference‐in‐differences (DID) or multivariate regression evaluation designs. In order to estimate the potential increase in average annual income associated with an intervention, we use the GNI per capita, PPP (current international $) combined with the labor share of national income of the country where the intervention was implemented (World Bank 2017; Neiman and Karabarbounis 2013). To compare all the interventions in the same time frame, we assume that all interventions began in 2015 (Buchmann et al. 2016).

For cost‐effectiveness analysis, a recent study by J‐PAL (2014) provides standardized effect sizes and program costs of 27 education interventions with student learning outcomes across Sub‐Saharan Africa and Asia. Our analysis includes 14 of those 27 programs with a significant impact at the 10% level. We estimate the equivalent years of schooling per $100 and the rate of return on investment. The cost data from J‐PAL in general consider costs to the implementer such as administrative and monitoring costs and the opportunity costs of the beneficiary and their family (see Dhaliwal et al. (2013) for details on methodology). To follow the time frame of J‐PAL’s data, all calculations related to cost‐effectiveness and cost‐benefit analysis are expressed in USD (2011 PPP).

# 4. Results

## 4.1 Increased Learning as EYOS

Across five STEP countries, we find that one standard deviation improvement in reading proficiency is associated with 4.7 to 6.8 EYOS, estimated by using our two different methods (Table 2).<sup>13</sup> In other words, it takes between 4.7 and 6.8 years of “business‐as‐usual” schooling to produce one standard deviation of learning. The descriptive method (Method 1) indicates the biggest EYOS of 6.8, while the estimate from the OLS model without country fixed effects (Method 2b) corresponds to 4.7 EYOS. However, Method 1 does not consistently predict larger EYOS across countries. In Colombia, the smallest EYOS of 4.8 is estimated through Method 1 and the largest (9.3) through Method 2. In Ghana, Method 2 indicates an EYOS of 4.4 and Method 1 yields an EYOS of 7.3. Nevertheless, although each method is based on a different set of reasonable assumptions, the results consistently demonstrate the sizable impacts of improved reading proficiency.

### _EYOS estimated through alternative benchmarks_

Our results from the pooled sample show that an additional year of schooling increases reading proficiency by 0.15 standard deviation (method 1), that is how much a student learns if she studies in a hypothetical “STEP” school, which reflects a mix of the education systems of the 5 countries. How much

> 12 Table A1 lists all the language learning outcomes reported in Snilstveit and others (2015) in the area of structured pedagogy; 30 out 68 tests (shown in bold) are included in the analysis of this paper.

> 13 Tables A2, A3 and A4 provide details on learning gains associated with an additional year of schooling that are used to estimate EYOS.

9