|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Education
and Poverty
IntroductionJulia Preece, National University of Lesotho (Extracts from Convergence article 2006) Poverty can be both a consequence of, and contributory factor to, educational exclusion. This paper argues that poverty and exclusion are multi-dimensional. They require a multi-sectoral and multi-level approach in education if the most vulnerable sectors of society are to benefit from initiatives to turn exclusion into inclusion. This paper also argues, however, that not all education contributes to poverty reduction. In order to demonstrate and explain my argument I outline the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, followed by some evidence of the relationship between poverty and marginalised social groups and how the consequences of poverty create a continuous cycle of educational disadvantage. I conclude by proposing some factors that need to be in place to maximise those positive consequences. I use the term ‘reduction’ rather than ‘eradication’ deliberately. This is because education alone cannot eradicate poverty. It is one factor in a highly complex matrix of global influences. Before I move to definitions, however, let us look at some statistics that highlight the link between poverty and education. The global picture The global picture of poverty is usually portrayed by statistical performance indicators. So, for instance absolute poverty is calculated at living on less than $1 a day. In terms of education, Sub Saharan Africa is cited as having only 55% of primary school enrolment compared with the world average of 90%. Women and girls suffer disproportionately in these statistics. Of the 104 million children age 6-11 not in school, 60 million are girls. At least 100 million girls will drop out of education before completing primary school. The dominant discourse builds up a global image of poor countries and what constitutes poverty, thus denying the underlying causes of poverty such as unfair trade practices, unequal power relations. Development, defined primarily in terms of poverty reduction, is a discourse that is consequently measured through the above statistics. Initiatives to address poverty relate to these performance indicators and reflect the focus of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In spite of these dominant discourses, it is now commonly recognised that poverty is more complex than these stark figures portray. And, this paper argues, the contribution of education is not so straight forward as simple enrolment figures may indicate. Poverty as multidimensional Poverty has multiple definitions and multiple ways of expressing itself. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP 2002) describes poverty in terms of income, capability and participation, recognising that poverty leads to trauma, powerlessness and shame, amongst other things. Other definitions of poverty also tend to reject the notion that poverty is simply associated with income. It may involve lack of self-determination, self-esteem and participatory democracy (Sen 1999). Drawing on these various perspectives, we can draw up a typology of poverty dimensions that Sen has characterised as ‘unfreedoms’. Capability poverty Sen (1999) conceptualised economic deprivation as an absence of freedom to participate in economic life. This includes a deprivation in the range of things people can do, the knowledge and skills needed to act independently for productivity or personal welfare consumption. Poor education and knowledge about how to challenge inequitable systems perpetuate exclusion and isolation. This capability ‘unfreedom’ creates a dependency role for people who are then locked into a vicious cycle of low skills that prevent better paid employment, thus perpetuating the cycle of need for the next generation. Participatory poverty Complementary to capability poverty are the more subjective renderings of participation and experiences of deprivation. Participatory poverty refers to deprivation in the range of things people can be including participation in social life and inclusion in decision making processes (UNDP 2002). This form of poverty can be interpreted as both an internalisation process and an externally imposed status. For instance, women’s work is often not recorded, and they are often excluded from decisions that could affect their ability to participate in development priorities (Sweetman 2002). Consequential poverty In contrast to these poverty concepts of a relationship between the individual’s perceived needs and deprivation, consequential poverty as described here is the result of deliberate human and political interventions on the natural or social environment. The harmful effects can produce participation, income or capability poverty. The most common structures and systems that create poverty are exploitation of labour, national debts, war and conflict, and the environment. Such systems are usually stimulated by a political or economically motivated reluctance to safeguard against exploitation. Poverty and marginalised groups Whilst some nations are more vulnerable to poverty than others, certain social groups are more likely to remain poor across the world. They include women, people with disabilities, migrants and asylum seekers, people living with ill health. Of the 534 million working poor, sixty per cent or more are women in the informal economy. They are the ones who face social discrimination to prevent them from attending school, working for wages and taking part in civic life (EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003). DFID (2000) also claims that only one or two per cent of children with disabilities receive education. When this level of education translates into adults who may be educated enough to sustain themselves, the prospects for adults who acquired their disability in childhood are meagre. Documentation about migrants and ethnic minorities generally also confirms that they experience social and economic disadvantage through poor quality housing, care and hostile environments (Robinson and Reeve 2006). The cycle of poverty and educational disadvantage The right to education is recognised by international declarations such as Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (UNESCO 2003). So wherever the right to education is denied, this becomes a social justice issue, which affects people’s life chances in a multidimensional way. Poverty reduces educational attainment, which in turn reduces the opportunity to escape from poverty. In many instances children from poor families are taken out of school in order to earn a wage on farms or in family enterprises (Ramachandran 2003). Girls are pulled out of school to look after siblings; girls and boys are also used for child labour to contribute to the family income. Families that are poor cannot afford textbooks and clothes or school uniforms. Poor, rural communities may not even have access to secondary schooling. People who are poor cannot afford either to pay for or to take time out to update their education. This makes them uncompetitive in the labour market, and thus creates a vicious cycle of low wages due to poor qualifications. Less educated households are less productive, get lower paying jobs, and therefore remain below the poverty line. Even when poor children do attend school they are often hungry, resulting in impeded concentration and learning (Haller 2002). When additional costs, such as the shared costs of disability, are required, whole families are affected. The need for assistance in their daily lives means that most disabled people experience social exclusion as a result of practicalities and attitudes towards them and their needs. Education per se, however, is not necessarily the proclaimed panacea that the MDGs indicate. There is evidence to suggest that some education may do little to enhance people’s life chances, especially if they are already poor. Negative and positive educational practices The following table delineates some differences between positive and negative educational practices in relation to the four dimensions of poverty as outlined in this paper. (Please, see the table 1 in the attached document) Negative education In some countries it is inadequately developed education that produces capability and participatory poverty. In other cases the nature of the education process itself can reproduce poverty circumstances for certain social groups. One indicator of this is the potential contradiction in schooling systems where an educational emphasis on skills and individualism, can fail to address the issue of inequality itself. Further, and particularly for people living in rural areas of developing countries, the formal knowledge taught in school is often irrelevant to people’s daily lives. Resources, including teachers and facilities, are insufficient in number and quality, and even the school year calendar precludes participation when it clashes with rural workloads. Education can also be a tool for empowerment and building capacity and capability to challenge inequalities. Some positive examples follow. Positive education Participatory poverty issues are likely to be addressed most effectively with participatory education which raises awareness of rights, responsibilities and potential for change. Models of addressing participatory poverty involve inclusive education practices and reflection-action processes, usually in informal or non-formal settings. Their shared educational approach is a mixture of informal, collectively supportive environments where awareness is raised about the structures around them that contribute to their disempowerment. Other factors that need to be in place One poverty reduction approach does not fit all situations. Nevertheless there seem to be some universal principles that engender a conducive environment for education opportunities that contribute to poverty reduction. These include partnerships and bottom up decision making, networking, reaching people in their natural surroundings, consultation, face to face contact, social mobilisation, advocacy and community leadership, learner support, and adequate follow up The most successful environments for holistic, multisectoral approaches are usually supported by institutional legal frameworks and facilitating mechanisms, such as an Education Act, Education Encouragement Fund, relevant basic education curriculum, and a country comprehensive poverty reduction and growth strategy (UNESCO 2002: 37-43). Donors, too, need to be sensitised to the benefits of this kind of work. Successful strategies rarely focus on a narrowly defined skills agenda alone. They usually adopt context specific and culturally sensitive curricula which draw on indigenous knowledge and practices as a starting point for enhancing literacy and numeracy skills, for instance. While education has been seen by many national governments as a major tool for tackling poverty and social exclusion, there is evidence that the underlying factors involved are much broader and deeper than is often understood by policy-makers and that any one area of social policy is unlikely, by itself, to be able to address the problem. Policy makers are urged to consider the combined consequences of policies rather than see them as isolated strategies.
|