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

Chapter 2: Linking Education, Skills and Context
alleviation <strong>of</strong> poverty since its many weaknesses (World Bank, 2004a; Palmer, 2007a) frequently
preclude a graduate apprentice from operating on a level that might significantly raise their
standard <strong>of</strong> living and hence lift them <strong>out</strong> <strong>of</strong> poverty (poverty reduction proper). PBET too
<strong>of</strong>ten tends to exclude the poor, but it might be argued that one <strong>of</strong> the contributions <strong>of</strong> PBET
to poverty reduction is not by lifting people <strong>out</strong> <strong>of</strong> poverty but by preventing people from
becoming poor in the first place (prevention <strong>of</strong> poverty). The higher incomes associated with
higher levels <strong>of</strong> education and training imply that those who manage to acquire skills at this
level will be less likely to become poor. Clearly, this depends crucially on the size and
inclusiveness <strong>of</strong> the post-basic segments <strong>of</strong> education and training. The multidimensional
character <strong>of</strong> poverty, as well as the various definitions <strong>of</strong> poverty reduction, mean that an
assessment <strong>of</strong> education/training impacts on income alone will not be satisfactory, and that such
an assessment needs to be explicit ab<strong>out</strong> the type <strong>of</strong> poverty reduction that is being referred to.
This suggests that it is not sufficient to claim that a particular programme is targeting the poor,
but rather the programme <strong>out</strong>comes should be made more explicit.
Fourthly, with reference to statistics on the relationship between different levels <strong>of</strong> skills
development and poverty reduction, we noted earlier that there seem to be few attempts to do
the kinds <strong>of</strong> rate <strong>of</strong> return calculations with TVET that are so commonly associated with formal
education. 11 This, as we suggested, was because TVET is far less comparable across countries
than formal general education. Also, methodologically, it is more difficult with TVET to
separate skills training itself from other variables. 12 For example, for those who enter TVET with
some prior degree <strong>of</strong> educational attainment, it can be difficult to disaggregate the impact on
<strong>out</strong>comes <strong>of</strong> formal education compared to training (e.g. income). Many other people enter
skills programmes after having worked in the labour market for some time and, in this instance,
it is difficult to separate <strong>out</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> skills training from the impact <strong>of</strong> work experience
(and the possible associated development <strong>of</strong> social and financial capital resulting from work
experience). For those individuals who have been through formal education, then entered
the labour market for a number <strong>of</strong> years, and then gone onto some form <strong>of</strong> TVET, the
methodological challenge is even greater. In addition, where skills programmes have a
micro-finance (and/or some other business development) component – which is <strong>of</strong>ten the
case with donor-funded projects – it is methodologically difficult to determine how much
impact the training has had when compared to the micr<strong>of</strong>inance or other support services as
part <strong>of</strong> the project.
Fifthly, determining what factors enable or inhibit good educational/training provision,
attendance, and achievements is crucial to any understanding <strong>of</strong> the links between education,
training and <strong>out</strong>comes (e.g. infrastructure, equipment and text books, biophysical environment,
teachers/trainers, culture, family support, finance, immediate opportunity costs). It is clear that
the delivery contexts <strong>of</strong> different education and/or training modalities vary, and that some
delivery contexts are more enabling than others.
Sixthly, any examination <strong>of</strong> the links between education and/or training and <strong>out</strong>comes has to
fully comprehend what factors enable or inhibit the transformation <strong>of</strong> education and/or training
11 See however Bennell (1996b) who makes the point that <strong>of</strong> the 19 country studies with reasonable quality <strong>of</strong> data only 5
arrive at rates <strong>of</strong> return to general secondary that are significantly higher than to vocational secondary schooling.
12 But one can equally argue that the rate <strong>of</strong> return calculations pay little attention to other variables, such as household
socio-economic background, quality <strong>of</strong> education, what skills were actually acquired in schools and so on.
(World Bank, 2005c: 85).
DFID 17