Despite massive investments in teacher professional development (PD) programs in developing countries, there is little evidence on their effectiveness. We present results of a large-scale, randomized evaluation of a national PD program in China in which teachers were randomized to receive PD; PD plus follow-up; PD plus evaluation of the command of PD content; or no PD. Precise estimates indicate PD and associated interventions failed to improve teacher and student outcomes after one year. A detailed analysis of the causal chain shows teachers find PD content to be overly theoretical, and PD delivery too rote and passive, to be useful.

We assess and compare computer science skills among final-year computer science undergraduates (seniors) in four major economic and political powers that produce approximately half of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates in the world. We find that seniors in the United States substantially outperform seniors in China, India, and Russia by 0.76–0.88 SDs and score comparably with seniors in elite institutions in these countries. Seniors in elite institutions in the United States further outperform seniors in elite institutions in China, India, and Russia by ∼0.85 SDs. The skills advantage of the United States is not because it has a large proportion of high-scoring international students. Finally, males score consistently but only moderately higher (0.16–0.41 SDs) than females within all four countries.

Importance:Uncorrected refractive error causes 90% of poor vision among Chinese children.

Background:Little is known about teachers' influence on children's glasses wear.

Design:Cohort study.

Participants:Children at 138 randomly selected primary schools in Guangdong and Yunnan provinces, China, with uncorrected visual acuity (VA)≤6/12 in either eye correctable to >6/12 in both eyes, and their teachers.

Methods:Teachers and children underwent VA testing and completed questionnaires about spectacles use and attitudes towards children's vision.

Main Outcome Measures:Children's acceptance of free glasses, spectacle purchase and wear.

Results: A total of 882 children (mean age 10.6 years, 45.5% boys) and276 teachers (mean age 37.9 years, 67.8% female) participated. Among teachers,20.4% (56/275) believed glasses worsened children's vision, 68.4% (188/275) felt eye exercises prevented myopia, 55.0% (151/275) thought children with modest myopia should not wear glasses and 93.1% (256/275) encouraged children to obtain glasses.Teacher factors associated with children's glasses-related behaviour included believing glasses harm children's vision (decreased purchase, univariate model: relative risk [RR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.43, 0.98,P< 0.05); supporting children's classroom glasses wear (increased glasses wear, univariate model: RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23,3.95,P< 0.01); and advising children to obtain glasses (increased free glasses acceptance, multivariate model: RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.29, 5.84,P< 0.01; increased wear, univariate model: RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.45, 5.90,P< 0.01), but not teacher's ownership/wear of glasses.

Conclusions and Relevance:Though teachers had limited knowledge about children's vision, they influenced children's glasses acceptance.

It is commonly believed that reading challenges should be addressed early to reduce the likelihood that developmental delays will impact students over the long term. However, students in developing countries often have limited access to reading resources. In this study, the authors used a randomized controlled trial of 11,083 fourth‐ and fifth‐grade students in 120 primary schools in rural China to examine the causal effect of an in‐class library program on student reading outcomes and academic achievement in schools with poor reading resources over an eight‐month period. An in‐class library was installed in each of the selected classes in the 40 treatment schools. The authors found that the program significantly improved student affinity toward reading and student reading habits, and in these regards, it narrowed the gap between male and female students, between low‐ and high‐performing students, and between left‐behind children and children living with parents. However, the authors found no overall effect of the program on reading and academic achievement and a negative effect on student confidence in reading. There was also no effect on student, teacher, and primary caregiver perceptions toward the effect of independent reading on academic achievement, nor any effect on whether teachers and primary caregivers provided reading instructions to students. The authors propose three possible explanations for these findings: a lack of reading instruction from teachers and caregivers, a lack of reading materials specifically tailored to local needs and interests, and the relatively short duration of the intervention.