Transcript How Low-Income Households Make Decisions About Investing

Balancing Education and Work:
An Integrated Youth Livelihood Development
Approach to Learners Who Need to Work
In Order To Stay In Education
A presentation to the 2008 CIES Conference
Teacher College (New York) -- March 21, 2008
David James-Wilson – EQUIP3 / EDC
The Challenge of Serving Poor Students…
• Much work has been done in the past decade to
address low school enrollment and low cohort
survival by focusing on supply-side obstacles
(buildings/teachers/curricula)
• Less work has been done to understand and
address demand-side issues as families make
decision for 10-18 year olds (including who is
involved, what information they rely on, and how
they make short and longer term decisions)
Opportunity Cost Driven Decision Making…
• Emerging research indicates that household
decision making regarding participation in
education involves significant “opportunity cost”
considerations related to the direct and indirect
costs associated with formal and non-formal
schooling (including forgone income from work)
• Poor households may “value” education, but still
not perceive that they can “afford” it (or they do
not have access to educational offerings they can
afford in opportunity cost terms)
How Poor Families Frame Decision Making…
• Because of the need for all family members in
many communities to contribute to daily
household-level livelihood strategies, very few
young people and their families frame their
decision as being between school or work –
• Rather they express decision making in terms of
looking for the optimal balance between
continuing education and ongoing work (between
short term gain and longer term opportunities).
Holistic Planning at the Household Level…
• Poor households understand that youth can
acquire “human capital” through various formal
and informal education and vocational training
opportunities – they also know that this can be
gained in work settings
• Poor households similarly understand the ability to
gain “social capital” in education and work settings
• Poor households are also looking for opportunities
for young members to gain key livelihood
competencies (especially higher order thinking)
Where continuing education fits…
Figure 1 - A Youth Livelihoods Approach to School to Work Transitions
#1 Acquiring Core Livelihood Assets
• Human, Social, Financial, Physical and Environmental
#2 Developing Key Livelihood Capabilities
• Positive risk taking, innovation, enterprise initiative, critical thinking and
dynamic problem solving
#3 Applying New and Existing Assets and Capabilities to a Range of
Livelihood Activities
• Employment /Self-Employment in formal and informal sectors,
• Work (paid and unpaid) in household economic activities (e.g. agriculture,
fishing, light manufacturing and petty trading )
• Investing time and money into the acquisition of additional human and social
assets (e.g. returning to education or developing peer networks)
How educators look at school and work…
Figure 2 - Traditional view of school to work transitions
SCHOOL
WORK
• Transition is seen to be an “event” or a “point it time”
• Metaphor for intervention is one of building a bridge from
school to work – with an emphasis on making a seamless
transition, and escaping the vicious cycle of poverty
• Flow of activity is seen to be generally from a focus on the
preparation of knowledge/skills to the application of
these to world of work
• Focus is on “dropout prevention” and successful
transition at as late a date as possible (with “guidance”
focused on staying in school)
• Focus is on improving the supply (quality/accessibility) of
learning inputs (versus the flexibility)
How young people and their families view it…
Figure 3 – Revised paradigm of school to work transitions
Education (Formal / Non-Formal / Informal / Work-Based)
Economic Activities (Formal/Informal, Paid/Unpaid, Individual /
Household Level)
•
•
•
•
Transition is seen to be an overlapping process that takes place over a
long period of time (driven by day to day opportunity cost driven decisions)
Metaphor is one of a balancing act or a dynamic exchange between
education and economic activities -- with a hope for virtuous cycles of
opportunity and growth
Flow of activity is seen to be as a parallel process marked by the spiraling
acquisition, application and continuous development of knowledge/ skills/
capabilities in and for work (with a view to maximizing livelihood outcomes)
Focus is on matching demand for learning outcomes with the development
of options that understand the importance of relevance in the (i) location,(ii)
timing, and (iii) content of offerings
Government and Community
Investments
•Capital Investments in school buildings
Recurring Costs such as teachers /
supplies
Program and staff development
Drivers of Decision-Making
 All three “investors” involved in cost-benefit
analysis
 All form judgments about access, quality
and relevance
 All rely on the information readily available
to them to make decisions
Young Person’s Investments
•Energy and interest
•Time spent on education in and out
of school hours
•Opportunity cost to acquisition of
human, social, financial assets in
other settings
Family Investments
•Direct costs (transportation,
uniforms, fees, supplies)
•Opportunity cost (deferred
contribution by young person to
household economic activities)
Eight Key Building Blocks to Demand Driven Design…
1. Focus is on what drives decisions of a
prospective user of a service (“demand” side of
equation)
2. Rely less on beliefs / assumptions of the
developer of a service (“supply” side of equation)
3. Assume that those with fewer resources / options
make even more careful/nuanced choices.
4. Focus on creating opportunity rather than
inducing change
Eight Building blocks continued…
5. See end-user as the “expert” and service provider
as the “specialist”
6. Have the discipline to focus on “need to know”
versus “nice to know” information
7. Employ a series of incremental tools that first
explore overall context of decision making (general
FGD guides) and then look at drivers of key
decisions (specific FGD/PRA + Survey Tools)
8. Expect surprises and rely on “smart humility” of
researcher / design team
Learning While Earning Programming…
•Instead of making poor youth and their households
choose definitively between continuing education
and earning income, such youth are often best
served with flexible, modular programming that
allows them to build human and social capital and
key livelihood competencies while still contributing
to immediate household economic survival
•Such “learning while earning” programs are propoor and youth friendly, and are a good way to build
on the gains from investments in universal primary
education or school enrollment campaigns