Quality vs. Quantity

Quality vs. Quantity
Quality and quantity are enemies. Where there is quantity, quality is often not important, and rarely achieved. Where there is quality, quantity suffers. But how do you balance this inverse relationship to get what’s best for everyone? If you focus on quality, what will change if you increase quantity by 1%? Probably nothing. What about 5%? 20%? 50%? How do you draw the line between doing what’s best and what looks best?
Let’s look at schools in Mozambique. They say that completing 7th grade is mandatory (but in reality it’s no more mandatory that having a driver’s license to drive) which makes putting caps on class size difficult. An average primary school classes has about 50-80 students. Even with optimal resources, well-trained teachers, and involved parents, getting a good, quality education would be difficult. Now change that to minimal resources, minimally trained and minimally dedicated teachers, and illiterate and uninterested parents, and what do you get? Students who enter secondary school (8th grade) without knowing how to read, write, understand or speak Portuguese very well. Students who can memorize that A=B and B=C, but can’t deduce that A=C. Students who complete 10th grade without being able to locate their own country on a map of eastern Africa. Students who need to use a calculator to do 3x7.
So my question is this: is it better to have 80 students who kind of know a little bit about a few subjects, or 40 students who know a fair amount about most subjects, and 40 kids who are illiterate? Because, in my opinion, if the lower achieving 50% of the students just got kicked out of school, the remaining 50% would be able to learn a fair amount. The “humanitarian” has to answer that all children have the right to education, and that all 80 students have the right to go to school. But what if realizing this right for the lower achieving 50% jeopardizes the education of the higher achieving 50%? What if, in the higher achieving 50%, there exist students who would be capable or learning how to be engineers, doctors, and various other professions that Mozambique imports from China and South Africa, at the benefit of these other countries? But these students never have the opportunity to show what they’re capable of.
In my opinion, from what I’ve seen here, Mozambique would have a better future sooner if all kids didn’t have the right to education. I know it sounds awful, but it’s true. At a public school here, it’s nearly impossible to get a quality education, and rare to get even a decent education. Example: I give tests that have 20 multiple choice questions, each question having 4 options. In two of my classes I asked the students what grade they would statistically get if they randomly guessed for every question. Out of approximately 70 12th-graders, exactly one knew that the answer was 5. If that’s half-way through 12th grade, imagine what all they don’t know after 7th grade. Is Mozambique educating its citizens to be able to lead and develop the country in the future? Will it always have to hire people from other countries to do things that are too advanced for them to do themselves? Will it always depend on foreign aid to fund all aspects of its functioning?
I know I sound pessimistic, but I’m also being realistic: Mozambique does not currently have the resources and infrastructure to give every child a quality education. Yes, we can say that they should work on building more schools and training more teachers. With what money? And what about right now? I know as a democratic American I’m supposed to say, “but even if the child can learn one thing that will help them in their lives, then it’s worth it for them to go to school.” Fine. If there were enough schools and teachers I would be 100% for that. But given the conditions that actually exist, is it worth it for one child to learn one useful thing while robbing another child of learning five useful things?