Educating out of Poverty? A Synthesis Report on Ghana, India ... - DfID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2: Linking Education, Skills and Context Policy makers need to determine how to allocate spending to different levels <strong>of</strong> education and training in order to get the optimal results. Higher levels <strong>of</strong> education are almost always much more expensive than primary provision; so the more extensive benefits must be weighed against the fact that fewer individuals can be supported. The question <strong>of</strong> what is the optimal balance <strong>of</strong> educational spending for poverty reduction is easier to conceptualise at a family level: in a context where educational costs are met by user fees, is a family more likely to escape poverty and reduce its vulnerability if it sends all <strong>of</strong>fspring to primary school or should it focus resources on sending one individual to secondary school in the hope that he/she will gain skills and income generating capacity that may benefit the family as a whole? The evidence for the six countries suggests that this is not a straightforward choice, and in some cases the rate <strong>of</strong> return to investment in post-primary education for some <strong>of</strong> the population may <strong>out</strong>weigh the returns from investment in universal primary education (see Chapter 4). The justification <strong>of</strong> funding UPE in these circumstances is therefore a rights-based one rather than an economic one. When considering the problem at a national level the situation is more complex, not least because educated individuals may feel less responsibility to their nation than to their family; so the indirect effects may not be conferred. At a national level it is helpful to consider the two extremes, however unrealistic such scenarios may be. Firstly there is the bottom-up, pro-poor approach: state spending is entirely on universal basic education at as high a quality as funds will permit, with no state investment in PBET. This clearly creates problems <strong>of</strong> inequality as only the richest end <strong>of</strong> society will be able to afford the fees <strong>of</strong> an unsubsidised PBET system. Also it raises the question <strong>of</strong> national capacity: where will the teachers <strong>of</strong> basic education and other pr<strong>of</strong>essionals get their education and training? The alternative is the top-down approach: government spending is mainly focussed at secondary and university level to produce a highly skilled workforce capable <strong>of</strong> earning high incomes and with skills that can be used to improve service delivery to the poor <strong>of</strong> future generations. The obvious flaw with this model is that many graduates will simply go overseas, taking their skills with them or remain in highly lucrative city-based jobs that do not benefit the poor in any way. Since both extremes are unlikely to result in long-term equity and poverty reduction, policy makers need to consider where the optimal balance lies. For sustainable poverty reduction, and for sustainable UPE, there needs to be a balance between investment in basic education and investment in the higher levels <strong>of</strong> education and training needed to support the delivery context and transformative contexts. This balance will clearly be different within each country context and will change over time. Education for All (EFA) and the MDGs have tended to push policy towards the bottom-up extreme. Whilst this research does not question the rights-based argument for EFA, it does question the timescale and considers the sustainability <strong>of</strong> very rapid expansion <strong>of</strong> the primary sector when it occurs at the expense <strong>of</strong> the post-primary sectors. This study investigates whether r<strong>out</strong>es by which different levels <strong>of</strong> education and training can contribute to poverty reduction, as presented in the theoretical model above, exist within the country contexts, and to what extent these r<strong>out</strong>es are enabled or inhibited by the contexts <strong>of</strong> the delivery <strong>of</strong> education and training and the environment beyond schooling and training. DFID 15
<strong>Educating</strong> <strong>out</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong>? A <strong>Synthesis</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on Ghana, India, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and S<strong>out</strong>h Africa 2.2 The conceptual and methodological challenges <strong>of</strong> linking education, skills and poverty reduction Table 2.1 <strong>out</strong>lines a typology <strong>of</strong> analytical considerations for linking education, skills training and poverty reduction. A few <strong>of</strong> these considerations are discussed briefly below. First we need to be clear ab<strong>out</strong> the types and levels <strong>of</strong> education and skills we are referring to, and also where these are delivered – in institutions, on-the-job or both. For skills training, for example, this might be divided into: • pre-vocational and orientation skills acquired through general primary or lower/upper secondary education; • traditional forms <strong>of</strong> TVET: i.e. school-based TVET at the lower/upper secondary level; 10 Centre/institution-based vocational training; Formal/informal enterprise-based training (including traditional apprenticeships); Agricultural training; Public or private training; • general tertiary education and higher-level technical and pr<strong>of</strong>essional skills training: i.e. general tertiary education, higher-level training at tertiary level in TVET, including training <strong>of</strong> instructors/teachers; Post-secondary agricultural education, training and research; High-level health skills; High-level business skills; High-level governance skills. Second, when examining the evidence or assertions related to education, skills training and poverty reduction, we need to be clear ab<strong>out</strong> what aspects <strong>of</strong> poverty or wellbeing (e.g. biophysical/social, individual/collective) are said to be causally linked with education and training. Are policy-makers paying due attention to all dimensions, or is their attention unduly biased towards specific dimensions such as income? We note in Chapter 3 that, despite the recognition <strong>of</strong> poverty having social, physiological and financial dimensions, in practice the core meaning <strong>of</strong> poverty for most people remains income poverty (and this can be seen as the dollara-day MDG indicator). Education generally, and primary and basic education in particular, are <strong>of</strong>ten linked with a whole host <strong>of</strong> positive development <strong>out</strong>comes, for example, income, fertility and productivity. TVET skills training is usually linked with improvements in productivity, quality and diversity <strong>of</strong> work, occupational safety, health and income benefits. Correlational studies linking education, skills training and poverty reduction will tend to focus on individual and biophysical/income-related aspects <strong>of</strong> poverty that are more easily measured, and pay less attention to the multidimensional nature <strong>of</strong> poverty. As the different aspects <strong>of</strong> poverty are interrelated, improvements in the quantifiable aspects <strong>of</strong> poverty may translate directly into overall poverty reduction but this translation should not be assumed to be automatic. Third, another question to ask is whether claims ab<strong>out</strong> education and skills training are usually linked with alleviation (<strong>of</strong> aspects or symptoms), reduction (lifting people <strong>out</strong> <strong>of</strong> poverty), or prevention <strong>of</strong> poverty. Education and skills training, <strong>of</strong> all types, are usually linked to income benefits as we have just noted and so are concerned with all three kinds <strong>of</strong> poverty reduction. But different levels <strong>of</strong> education and skills provision are linked to different types <strong>of</strong> poverty reduction. For example, traditional apprenticeship training might be more associated with 10 It is intriguing to note that despite the rhetoric ab<strong>out</strong> the move from traditional TVET to flexible skills development, the Bank’s latest volume on secondary education admits the following: “Overall, there appears to be some movement away from institutionally distinct secondary vocational schools and programmes, although most countries still have such arrangements” (World Bank, 2005c: 85). 16 DFID
Page 1 and 2: Researching the Issues 2007 70 <str
Page 3 and 4: Educating
Page 35: Educating
Page 87 and 88:
Educating
Page 89 and 90:
Educating
Page 91 and 92:
Educating
Page 93 and 94:
Educating
Page 95 and 96:
Educating
Page 97 and 98:
Educating
Page 99 and 100:
Educating
Page 101 and 102:
Educating
Page 103 and 104:
Educating
Page 105 and 106:
Educating
Page 107 and 108:
Educating
Page 109 and 110:
Educating
Page 111 and 112:
Educating
Page 113 and 114:
Educating
Page 115 and 116:
Educating
Page 117 and 118:
Educating
Page 119 and 120:
Educating
Page 121 and 122:
Educating
Page 123 and 124:
Educating
Page 125 and 126:
Educating
Page 127 and 128:
Educating
Page 129 and 130:
Educating
Page 131 and 132:
Educating
Page 133 and 134:
Educating
Page 135 and 136:
Educating
Page 137 and 138:
Educating
Page 139 and 140:
Educating
Page 141 and 142:
Educating
Page 143 and 144:
Educating
Page 145 and 146:
Educating
Page 147 and 148:
Educating
Page 149 and 150:
Educating
show all

Educating out of Poverty? A Synthesis Report on Ghana, India ... - DfID

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?