IFLL – The Impact of Lifelong Learning and Poverty Reduction – Public Value – Paper1

This paper, written by Ricardo Sabates, sets out to summarise the evidence of the impact of lifelong learning on poverty reduction.  The author takes great care to stress that the paper is “a contribution to an empirically based understanding of the complex mechanisms through which education impacts on poverty reduction.” p4

The paper provides a definition of poverty and sets out the learning opportunities for poor people before reviewing literature on the effects of adult education, financial and health literacy and the impact of lifelong learning on the reduction of child poverty.  As I have noted before, this paper, in common with the other three publications in this series on Public Value, does not develop or challenge the definition of public value given in Foreword  p2 (See previous posts) and like the other papers does not use the term in the main body of the text.

More clearly than the other papers, this paper sets out a series of six clear propositions, which are worth reproducing in full.

1. The impact of learning on employment possibilities is a key area for poverty reduction. For individuals in employment improved income has been the result of continuing learning and training opportunities.
2. Adult education with provision of financial literacy and support to access public funds can help fill the gap in financial services for low-income disadvantaged families.
3. There are important health benefits of adult learning. Particularly important for the poor are the benefits of health literacy and numeracy.
4. Improving the education of adults is not just about them, but also about their children. Upgrading adult skills can bring large returns for their children.
5. There is a lack of studies investigating the net impact of lifelong learning on poverty reduction in the UK and on the possible multiplier effect of education policies with other initiatives. There is a particularly strong need for continuing longitudinal studies.
6. Lifelong learning should be part of any approach to reducing poverty, but it will only be fully effective in interaction with other policies. p4

Defining Poverty

Sabates presents a flexible definition of poverty that acknowledges the complexity of the situations of those living in poverty and the relationship of poverty with the related issues of vulnerability and social exclusion. The diagrammatic representation of the “poverty framework” p6, provides a helpful representation of the issues covered in the paper and the model adopted by the author.

Measuring Poverty

This is short section indicating that the primary measure of poverty is the establishing a poverty line based on living standards. Other indicators seen as important, as well, are seen as including health, education, access to employment and housing conditions and non-material conditions such as exploitation, shame and lack of power pp6-7.

Access to adult education and training opportunities

This section maps the progressive change in priority for Government from widening participation, with its two priorities of reviving the economy alongside social and civic regeneration, to an adult learning policy focused on economic imperatives and those of cohesion and social integration. Notwithstanding, the provision of education opportunities remains diverse offered by a wide range of providers funded from both public and private sources and managed through different levels of accountability.  Sabates notes that although participation had increased since the publication of the “Skills for Life” strategy there is “a considerable attrition rate between enrolment, completion and achievement of qualifications” p9.

Review of evidence

This section forms the bulk of the paper and is warmly recommended as an overview of evidence of the impact of learning across different modes of delivery from higher education to on-the-job and off-the-job training for those in employment. The increase in wage returns for those in higher education programmes is contrasted with the lack of such wage returns for those receiving training for lower or middle vocational qualifications. Other sections cover financial literacy/capability, employment and health, employment and child poverty and provide summaries of the issue faced in the research and the key findings. These will not be summarised here, but referred to in the final posting.

Gaps in evidence

Despite giving the reader helpful information on key findings, Sabates indicates that there are five crucial gaps in the evidence;

1. The lack of any evidence demonstrating the impact of investment in improving educational opportunities for adults on poverty reduction;
2. Lack of empirical evidence of the role of lifelong learning in providing individuals (and, I would argue here, this applies to neighbourhoods and communities) with autonomy, power and a sense of control over their lives;
3. The impact of learning on subjective poverty.  This is raised as a key notion in “The Spirit Level” (see the previous post) and is seen by the author of this paper as being an important part of the evidence on the impact of learning on well-being;
4. The relative paucity of studies on the impact of adult learning on child development; and
5. The need for evidence about the multiplier effects in learning when seen alongside other interventions to alleviate poverty and which forms of learning generate higher benefits for adults.

Conclusions

The main conclusion drawn in this paper is that “lifelong learning has an important potential contribution to make to poverty reduction”, however, “the effectiveness of lifelong learning in reducing poverty is very much dependent on its integration with other policy measures” p21. The details are set out in eight key conclusions;

1. “The impact of learning on employment possibilities is a key area for poverty reduction” – e.g. the roles of adult education maintaining the skills of the current workforce, upgrading the skills of those needing to increase their employability and supporting adults in re-skilling. p21
2. “Adult education with provision of financial literacy and support to access public funds can fill the gap in financial services for low-income, disadvantaged families.” p21
3. “There are important health benefits of adult learning. Particularly important for the poor are the benefits of health literacy and numeracy.” p22
4. “Improving the education of adults is not just about them but also about their children. Upgrading adult skills can bring a large return for their children.”p22
5. “There is a lack of studies investigating the net impact of lifelong learning on poverty reduction in the UK and on the possible multiplier effect of educational policies with other initiatives.” p22
6. “Lifelong learning may be part of any approach to reducing poverty, but it will only be in interaction with other policies.” pp22-3
7. “For individuals in employment, improved income has been the result of continuing learning and training opportunities.” p23
8. “Need for continuing longitudinal studies” p23

Summary

While Sabates provides a set of conclusions that identify important issues that need attention in the study of the impact lifelong learning, like the other papers in the series, the concerns short circuit the link between Government policies and individuals, missing out the connections between individuals and their peers and the possibilities of mutual support and organisation in communities and neighbourhoods. For example, “For individuals in employment, improved income has been the result of continuing learning and training opportunities.”  p23. This strikes me as ignoring the important connection of community and trade union organisation and mutual support, which, it is arguable, have had more impact on raising and sustaining the income of those in employment, and those not employed than other variables, including Government policies.  In common with the Leitch report the paper seems to see lifelong learning as being determined by Government policy and therefore justifying its analysis in joining up policy initiatives to focus on public value as measured in terms of employability and the reduction of costs to the “taxpayer”.

As writers such as Seabrook in the UK and Ehrenreich have shown there is much employment that fails utterly to deliver better lives or public value and any concept of lifelong learning that is purely instrumental will fail to address the needs of learners for better lives, where employment is not the sole purpose of individual aspiration and public activities enable individuals to make the connections with their communities to widen their scope for control of their lives and personal development and to contribute to these purposes for others. Try as I might, I haven’t found reference to Infed and others holding a less policy focused view of lifelong learning and its public value. The unifying strand of these papers on public value seems to be a response to Government policy, when a wider view is needed.

I will come back to these points in my summary of the issues raised by this and the other papers and how I see this strand within the main report. From this final analysis I will set out some arguments for public value in the wider terms pointed to in these reviews.

Nigel

Advertisement