Education is a Human Right...but who pays for it?

Education is a Human Right...but who pays for it? The short answer?  We all do. 

Read: Education for All (EFA) from the UNESCO site, Education is not only a right but a passport to human development. It contributes to fostering peace, democracy and economic growth as well as improving health and reducing poverty.

Or, read Education Counts: Towards the Millenium Development Goals (2011) published by UNESCO.  Education represents opportunity. At all ages, it empowers people with the knowledge, skills and confidence they need to shape a better future.

And it is listed in the Indicators of Well-Being in Canada, where adult literacy — the ability to understand and then use information — is a fundamental skill. It is essential not only for participating fully at work, but for everyday life as well (e.g., for choosing products when grocery shopping). With a more literate workforce, Canada is also better able to compete in the global economy.


And as reported by Harmeet Singh in Strategy  (June 1, 2015), “In a developed country, you sometimes don’t realize that a lack of literacy skills can have a detrimental social, economic and even life threatening impact on a person – or an entire country for that matter,” adds Patrick Scissons, chief creative officer at Grey. “We wanted to raise the profile of the importance of literacy beyond just being able to read a book, menu or road sign.”  Check out the video spots here:  World Literacy Canada’s open book

Digital Divide: an eLearning inverse accessibility law

Self-efficacy and the digital divide combine as a definitive barrier to learner engagement. Accessibility is more than the ability to get on a computer.  The anytime, anywhere mantra for online distance education implies shortcuts and skills that don’t take into account under-represented learners, those who arrive with low self-efficacy and low technological fluency.  Learners who are already marginalized by their literacy level and socio-economic status are at risk.  Rhetoric and systems that are not accountable to the realities of learners are then charged with “increasing access for those who are already being served rather than broadening it to underserved groups” (Gunger & Prins, 2011, p 7).  This creates the digital divide.

We can look to a report, E-Mental Health in Canada: Transforming the Mental Health System Using Technology,  produced by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which examines strategic directions and eMental health possibilities. It raises limitations, however, one being the digital divide. As quoted in the report:  "The 2012 Canadian Internet Use Survey sponsored by Industry Canada found that 83% of Canadian households had Internet access at home. This demonstrates that approximately one in six did not have an Internet connection at home."  In addition, "Only 58% of households in the lowest income quartile had home Internet access compared to 98% in the top income quartile."  This reality "suggests a digital divide" with "the potential to reinforce health inequalities, as those who most need health care are those least likely to have access to services on the Internet – an e-Health inverse care law."

When it comes to education, considering that there are “more socially disadvantaged than advantaged sections of society…where, students who are teetering at the poverty level can seldom afford to buy and maintain computers and Internet service” (Moore, 2012, p. 214), it becomes then, an e-Learning inverse accessibility law.  As such, the concept of accessibility needs to be re-examined. 

Gungor, Ramazan & Prins, Esther. (2011). Distance Learning in Adult Basic Education: a review   of the literature. Institute for the study of Adult Literacy, The Pennsylvania State University.

Moore, Michael Grahame. (2012). A Rare Case of Research in Distance Education in Adult            Basic Education, American Journal of Distance Education, 26:4, 213-216, DOI:    10.1080/08923647.2012.732788

Adult Foundational Learning and the Economy of Education

There has been a call in the adult learning environment to streamline and reduce duplication, eliminate waste, and centralize the post-secondary system. The business model.

The problem is the survival mode in the face of such a climate can also change the climate within an institution.  No longer is even basic education honoured as a human right.  Disenfranchising people because their educational needs don’t fit neatly into time frames and business models, manufactures narratives based in rationalization and rhetoric. Recognition of values-based programming isn't considered worthy of costs, that is, unless the value is according to economy and a quick fix mentality.  

“But students want to get in and out and into employment right away.”  Of course they do!  Besides having many other things going on in their life, who doesn’t want to achieve something they have to sacrifice time and family and money in attaining?  Does that mean post-secondary institutions throw pedagogy, and the brain-based research involved in how humans learn and understand information out the window?   Or throw out any programming that doesn’t conform with the quick fix mentality of a business model? Does it mean ignoring educational needs in favor of the chimerical solution of online-anytime?  It shouldn’t. 

There needs to be a happy marrying of the two components, based on the paradigms of adult learning and proven educational  practices. A standing up for what is right and what works for learners.  Culture, diversity, literacy, numeracy, efficacy, learning barriers, learning disabilities, all should be considered in the delivery of any programming.   Accessibility that is decentralized beyond the technological panacea, and thinking in ways that provide a bridge between economy and education.  

Education is a human right.  But the pressure remains, who is going to pay for it?