Offering fully funded primary education for children in developeing countries is believed to decrease poverty rates. While this approach can contribute to solving the issue of illiteracy, it is not the most efficient way to fight poverty. In my opinion, it is more beneficial for the government to offer 12 years of fully funded education, and to introduce financing options for university.
To start with, having only 6 years of free schooling may cause financial pressure on parents, as they would have to start saving funds to afford extra years of study till highscool for their kids. For instance, families who have low income jobs such as farming or service workers may struggle with paying school fees and their children are at risk of dropping out in their early teens. Without any practical skills, they are more likely to work in the same low-paying jobs, creating a cycle of poverty.
Moreover, this will also result in fewer people opting for higher education due to shortage of funds. For example, specializations such as medicine and engineering would face a decline in enrollments which results in a skill shortage in the job market. Therefore, financing options such as student loans and fee waivers should be made more popular so people can have the choice to either go into trades or study a higher degree, both options which gaurantee a higher quality of life.
In conclusion, not investing in free education for all can potentially cause crippling financial pressure on families already struggling with daily expenses, in addition to being discouraged from pursuing higher degrees. Poverty rates can be decreased by ensuring equal opportunities.