Literature Review Importance of education in human capital formation is subject to debate in formulating education policies. The influence of globalization, impact of conflict on education, performance measurements for the various stages in education and knowledge transfer with the aim of creating a knowledge economy form the basis of discussion in instilling lifelong learning and forming human capital. Borghans and Heijke (2005) argue that governments have had structures to link education to the labor market for a long time. The authors reiterate these using six points of view regarding the informing nature of economies and labor market demands on education. Green (2002) who seems to share similar sentiments with Borghans and Heijke (2005) argue that political and economic efficiency of the production process of education are critical to its success. Although globalization centers on policymaking in divulging knowledge, Jallabe and Mora (2001) digress. They argue that universities’ adherence to Lifelong Learning is hampered, to some extent, by national policies, academic traditions and financial pressures. The manner in which international discourse on Lifelong Learning affects policy-making remains vague and subject to the above factors. This contrasts with Aucoin (2011) who critically elucidates on the massive opportunities and threats that globalization and embracing of ICT has brought to human capital formation and policy formulation. Aucoin (2011) compares knowledge societies and knowledge economies of developing nations and developed nations. Developed nations pursue knowledge economies, which is the basis for comparative advantage. Doyle (2008) compares systems of education in France and England based on the PISA 2000 benchmark. She looks critically at the PISA program concerning inequality in attainment of education and inequality levels. The study finds the PISA program useful for comparison of inequality but finds fault in its use as a performance tool in comparing pupils and students. Doyle (2008) finds that the traditional setting of a country is a contributor to the performance of students. Previous studies echo the same sentiments (Green 2002, Borghans and Heijke 2005). Additionally, the study questions the universal applicability of the parameters PISA uses to measure the level of proficiency in reading literacy. This includes retrieving information, interpreting texts and reflection. Fuchs and Wößmann (2007) dissect the PISA program as a tool to measure students’ performance. The study finds that institutional contribution to students’ performance is significantly low compared to other factors such as family backgrounds, inputs from home and availability of useful education resources. They term these as ‘student characteristics’. In contrast to Doyle (2008), this study analyzes the effect of external exam and budget formulation. Additionally, the two look at the autonomy of a school while selecting crucial learning materials (such as textbooks), hiring tutors and the allocation of budget within the school. This has been contentious and empirical evidence has not conclusively supported or negated the findings of this study. Over time, the definition of educati