What are the educational benefits of Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) to children living in poor households? How are they targeted and implemented? Where does learning figure in the underlying programme theory? This working paper from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics critically examines some of the evidence on CCTs, focussing on the documentation of educational effects.
There is limited support for the conclusion that CCTs are effective educational instruments, particularly in terms of their ability to increase learning. Whilst CCTs appear well-suited for transferring resources to poor people, they are inadequate for the goal of educational development. CCT programmes should, therefore, focus on poverty alleviation rather than educational development and special attention should be given to alternative uses of educational resources.
CCTs have modest positive effects on school attendance and educational attainment:
- Of the nine CCT programmes reviewed, most report improvements in at least one of the following areas – primary school enrolment, promotion, repetition and/or dropout – but impacts vary widely.
- Few of these programmes show any impact on student learning, quality of instruction or school improvement. The CCT programmes reviewed may need to reassess their missions in order to remain relevant.
- Only two of five programmes whose educational theories focused on increasing enrolments were successful in this respect. Overall, most programmes did result in increased school attendance by cash transfer recipients.
- Dropout, repetition and promotion were not often addressed in programme theories. Neither of the two programmes that directly addressed these areas had an impact, although others did see improvements.
- There is no evidence that students receiving cash transfers perform better than their counterparts not receiving the transfers.
- The conceptual and organisational limitations of CCT programmes mean that they do not address direct improvements in the quality of education and there is currently little incentive to do this.
- A centralised approach to management of CCT programmes may undermine the formation of social capital although it can act as a tool to ensure transparency.
CCTs are educationally inefficient because they target beneficiaries on the basis of poverty rather than educational need. There is a need for more information and evidence about whether students actually learn more through CCTs:
- It is unclear whether greater educational effects could be obtained with quality improvement measures alone. Conducting such studies is thus one of the most immediate research implications of this review.
- Empowering teachers with the authority to directly influence the welfare of poor families may undermine the positive impact of CCTs. Increasing parental participation in school councils can build social capital and foster the development of democratic skills and attitudes.
- There is a danger that quality could decline because of larger class sizes.
- The decision to drop out is the result of the interaction between opportunity costs and poor, prior academic preparation. Cash transfers may help keep students in school as long as the expectations for progression are low.
- A critical assumption of CCT programmes is that beneficiaries will have more income generating opportunities. Job creation should thus be a component in any long-term strategy for poverty alleviation.
- There is a need for better-elaborated educational theories in order to gain a better understanding of the potential benefits of CCT programmes for education.
