A school of thought holds that in order to decline poverty in developing nations, the best method is by providing six years education for free, hence warranting the poor’s reading, writing and using numbers abilities. While this thinking is valid to a certain extent, I personally argue that the provision of free education for six years to decrease poverty in developing countries is not the best way.
On the one hand, there are several compelling reasons why some people adhere to the belief that giving up six-year-free education remains the best approach to mitigate poverty in developing countries. Firstly, this allows more people, especially the disadvantaged, to stand a higher chance of securing higher paid jobs and bettering their life quality. Secondly, more people accessing education, prompted by the exemption of school fees for six years, leads to a more educated workforce, which acts as a precursor to not only a thriving economy but also a civilized society.
On the other hand, I am convinced that wholly subsidizing education up to six years in developing countries is not the best way to reduce poverty for a host of reasons. First and foremost, since poor people might give precedence to earning money to make ends meet, making six-year education free can not assure an increase in the number of poor pupils going to school how to read, write and use numbers. Additionally, six years of education are not inclined to guarantee the poor blue-collared employments, but solely white-collared ones, which can be done with practical experiences and no academic qualifications. As a result, attending school six years for free would be of little use to the underprivileged.
In conclusion, I contend that the benefits of waiving education up to six years does not make it the best way resulting in the mitigation of poverty in developing countries.