Transcript Document

Research Consortium on
Educational Outcomes and
Poverty
(RECOUP)
International Director – Professor Christopher Colclough
Partners:
• Centre for Commonwealth Education, University of
Cambridge – lead partner
• School of Social and Political Studies, University of
Edinburgh
• Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE),
University of Oxford
• Collaborative Research and Dissemination (CORD), New
Delhi, India
• Mahbub Ul Haq Human Development Centre, Islamabad,
Pakistan
• Associates for Change, Accra, Ghana
• Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya
Research Objectives
•To understand what explains the relationships
between education and poverty
•To understand how better outcomes of
education can best be promoted
•To elucidate how educational policy can be
optimised to help achieve social and economic
transformation
Methods
• The research agenda is being addressed via
both quantitative and qualitative enquiries,
and the generation of knowledge will be
based upon new data collected by the
consortium.
• A set of innovative household surveys are
being conducted in the countries where our
southern partners are based.
• Qualitative enquiries, with common designs,
are also being conducted across each
location.
Themes and Projects
• Social and human development outcomes of
education
• Disability and poverty study
• Health and fertility study
• Youth gender and citizenship study
• Education and market outcomes
• Skill acquisition and its impact on livelihoods
• Outcomes from different national and
international partnerships
• Outcomes of Public private partnerships
• Aid partnerships and educational outcomes
Does more money for education
help the poor?
-Education and income – which way do the linkages go
-Educational expenditures and outcomes
-Education and its returns
-National and International Policies
NERs and per capita income 2005
1.200
Tajikistan
Argentina
1.000
Bangladesh Brazil
India
Tanzania
Ghana
Mexico
Lebanon
Malta
Kuw ait
Turkey
Bahamas
Total primary NER
0.800
Oman
Kenya
UAE
Liberia
Rw anda
0.600
Saudi Arabia
0.400
Burkina Faso
Niger
DR Congo
0.200
Somalia
0.000
0
5000
10000
15000
GN I p e r c a p i t a
20000
25000
30000
Links between Expenditures,
Enrolments and Unit Costs
E = (Xg + Xp)/ C
Where E = Enrolments
Xg= Public spending on Education
Xp= Private spending on Education
C = Costs per student
A Paradox:
Test scores and changes in per pupil expenditures in
OECD
Country
Australia
New Zealand
France
Italy
Germany
Japan
United Kingdom
Belgium
Netherlands
United States
Sweden
Change in
mathematics
and science
score,
1970-94
-2.3
-9.7
-6.6
1.3
-4.8
-1.9
-8.2
-4.7
1.7
0
4.3
Increase in
Increase in
real spending
real GDP per
per pupil, 1970- capita, 197094
94
269.8
222.5
211.6
125.7
108.1
103.3
76.7
64.7
36.3
33.1
28.5
46.4
24.3
60.7
74.6
66.8
100.7
58.3
68
52.9
70.5
35.1
Staff
compensation
as % of
current
expenditure on
primary
education,
1995
79
n.a.
79
89
76
87
70
86
78
80
56
National resources: finance and
quality
Students in countries that invest more in education tend to have
better literacy skills. In high-income states, the impact of
additional resources is less clear
Average combined literacy score
600
550
Rep. of Korea
Finland JapanCanada
UK
Australia
Sweden
Ireland
Austria
Norway
BelgiumFrance
Czech Rep.
USA
Denmark
Hungary
Germany
Poland
Spain
Italy
Portugal
Greece
500
450
Mexico
400
Chile
Argentina
Indonesia
Brazil
350
Peru
300
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
Cumulative education expenditure per pupil (PPP US$)
80 000
90 000
Survival in school and PTR
Only one-third of students reach last grade of primary education
where pupil/teacher ratios are high
80
Chad
70
60
PTR
Mozambique
Malawi
Ethiopia Cambodia
Bangladesh
50
Madagascar
40
Burkina Faso
Senegal
Lesotho
India Niger
South Africa
Mauritania
Nicaragua
Guatemala
30
Colombia
Bolivia
Iraq
20
Cuba
10
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Survival to last grade (% )
Primary education: pupil/teacher ratios and survival to the last grade,
2001
Relationship between GER and teacher
salary
Measuring Quantity is insufficient
Study
Country
Cohort
% that has ever
% that
% that achieved NER in primary
enrolled
survived to
minimum
for the period
(ages 6-14)
grade 5
mastery
before the test
SACMEQ
Malawi
(1995)
Mauritius
Grade 6 Reading test Namibia
U. R.Tanzania
100
100
100
100
91
99
97
87
31
98
74
70
7
52
19
18
69
99
84
54
PIRLS (2001)
Colombia
Grade 4 Reading test Morocco
100
100
98
99
60
77
27
59
87
81
PASEC
(mid 1990s)
Grade 5 French test
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
35
88
65
48
78
48
82
25
45
45
32
31
42
49
21
33
38
21
20
25
40
28
73
49
36
63
51
66
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Côte d’Ivoire
Guinea
Madagascar
Senegal
Togo
Quantitative versus qualitative indicators of participation in primary
schooling
Growth, Skills and Education
• The case thus far:
• Ed is productive so it helps growth
• Ed at all levels brings personal returns, and
highest at prim. Balance needed, but even
primary level helps all society and directly
helps the poor
• Non-market effects and externalities (literacy,
numeracy, health and fertility behaviour) are
delivered even by primary and particularly for
girls
• So UPE is a pro-poor, pro-growth strategy
Do changes to the pattern of
returns change the earlier logic?
• Evidence that private returns to
sec/higher ed are increasing, and often
greater than those at primary
• Evidence that some behavioural changes
are increasingly associated with
secondary
• Why? Supply-side changes in quantity and
quality reduce returns at primary and
increase returns at higher levels
Changing patterns of returns in SSA
(around 2000)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
prim
sec
tertiary
Ghana
Cote
d'Ivoire
Nigeria
Burkina
Faso
Literacy rate of 22 to 44 year-olds in Central
African Republic, according to years of
schooling (2000)
Possible relationships between
schooling and earnings
Positive returns to primary mean that primary schooling reduces poverty and supports growth.
Personal
Earnings
concave
convex
S1
S2
S3
S4
Years of
Schooling
Policy Choices in Education
• High sec/tertiary returns may imply under-expansion
and skill constraint. Increased supply may boost
production and employment, thereby increasing
opportunities for the poor. Balance obviously required
• Emphasis on quantity will not solve the quality crisis
• True returns depend on costs, which are tiny for
primary, very high for tertiary. Most data cover only the
wage-employed. Returns in self-employment may be
different, and higher for primary.
• Where returns to primary remain positive, priority for
EFA/primary remains necessary on poverty and growth
grounds. Some obsolescence over time, but human
capital, once given to the poor, cannot be taken away.
Its advantage is there for life
• The rights case remains fundamental
Does Aid to Education Help the
Poor?
• Aid to basic ed doubled from $2.2 to $4.4bn,
2000-’04. But this was 1/3 of projected
additional needs.
• Slow start means that an additional $10bn
now needed annually to 2015
• Gleneagles promised an extra $50bn total by
2010, of which $10bn to education
• DFID will increase aid to ed from £0.5 to
£1bn by 2010. This doubling over 4yrs is the
scaling-up problem
Out of school children and UK aid to education
Countries
Out-of-school
children (000)
2004
DFID bilateral
spending on
education 05/6
8109.6
6512.0
6463.0
5555.0
4583.0
3615.0
2562.0
1425.0
1326.0
1288.0
1271.0
1226.0
1223.0
1172.0
1129.0
1126.0
1089.0
9,815,850
148,119
1,016,017
2,225,297
97,885,160
1,935,727
2,404,221
Totals
49674.6
154,401,686
Global Total
76800.0
308,473,321
64.7
50
Nigeria4
DR Congo
Pakistan 5
China
India
Ethiopia
Sudan
Saudi Arabia
Niger
Afghanistan 7
Burkina Faso
Kenya
Cote D'Ivoire
Mali
Ghana
Somalia 6
Mozambique4
% of Global total
Scaling up
country
Low income
country
PSA country
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
P
P
P
P
5,478,318
19,798,722
13,694,255
UK aid to education 2005/6 and out-ofschool children
9000
Nigeria
8000
7000
Pakistan
out-of-school children
6000
China
5000
India
4000
Ethiopia
3000
Sudan
2000
Kenya
1000
Mozambique
Ghana
Uganda
Cambodia
Rw anda
South Africa
Malaysia
Bangladesh
0
0
20000000
40000000
60000000
UK education aid
80000000
100000000
120000000
UK aid to education 2005/6 and out-ofschool children (excl. India)
9000.0
Nigeria
8000.0
7000.0
DR Congo
Pakistan
out-of-school children
6000.0
China
5000.0
4000.0
Ethiopia
3000.0
Sudan
2000.0
Kenya
1000.0
Mozambique
Yemen
Columbia
Nepal
Sierra Leone
Indonesia
South AfricaMalaw i
The Gambia
0.0
0
5,000,000
Vietnam
10,000,000
Uganda
Zambia
Ghana
Tanzania
Rw anda
15,000,000
UK education aid
Bangladesh
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
UK aid to ed and NER/Survival/out-ofschool children
1.20
1.00
Tajikistan
Shri Lanka
Peru
Botsw ana
Bahamas
0.80
Malaw i
The Gambia
Indonesia
Index 3
China
0.60
Columbia
Liberia
Zimbabw e
Bangladesh
Tanzania
Uganda
Kenya
Sierra Leone Nepal
Sudan
Burundi
Ethiopia
Pakistan
0.40
Zambia
South Africa Vietnam
Nigeria
Rw anda
Mozambique
Ghana
DR Congo
0.20
0.00
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
DFID aid to education
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
Aid Policy
• Continued core support for primary/basic
cycle with shift to mid-secondary where
UPE within reach
• Strong support to quality –inputs do
matter
• Support to fee-free policies, with gender
emphasis, in basic cycle
• Advocacy of balanced ed provision in light
of economies’ needs