Sharing Nicely

I decided to join David Wiley’s course on open education, but don’t expect to be able to participate every week.

Finally returned to Cape Town on the weekend and am jumping in late to the discussions. I read the Tomasevski papers on the plane, and have not had a chance to look at the discussions so far. So hopefully I am not repeating too much what others might have said already.

Yes, education is (or should be) a human right, but will that change anything?

I cannot argue with Tomasevski’s main argument that education should be acknowledged as a basic human right, but I don’t share her enthusiasm for the impact that this will have on the quality of education globally. For example, looking at the list of existing human rights treaties that include education and the large number of countries that has already ratified them (this is covered mostly in Primer 2) makes it clear that more is needed to address the big challenges facing education, especially in many developing countries. Tomasevski seems to say that somehow labeling education a human right would force the donor community to make available the funds that are needed, make governments design good education policies and implement them, increase the quality of teaching and learning, etc.

With regards to “real” solutions to the problems, which she lists, her key statement on how to start improving the current situation remains sadly focused on our ability to find the financial means necessary,

“The identification and elimination of obstacles – especially financial – to the realization of the right to education is the key to progress” (Page 9)

even though she also quotes Amartyias Sen’s perceptive comment that,

“If one has any sense of priority, to say that India does not have the money is absolute, utter, unmitigated nonsense.” (Page 21)

Tomasevski argues that corollary rights would make it possible to hold governments and international organisations accountable, but in light of other international rights that are frequently violated (notably not only by developing countries) this merely presents a starting point and the real work of fixing education still remains to be done. She points to Primer No. 3 as containing more detail and examples where governments were held to deliver on fundamental responsibilities related to education and I should probably read that as well.

Finally, I was confused by her statements on higher education. On page 42 she rallies against high spending on higher education,

“Without human rights correctives, resource allocation in education looks pretty much the same worldwide. Most money goes to universities, whose learners are the most expensive to school, the fewest in number, and the most likely to pertain to the country’s elite.” (Page 42)

yet three pages earlier she pointed out that there is not enough focus on tertiary education,

“The current international priority for basic education has led to a halt in financial support for post-basic education. This fares ill against findings that the foundation necessary to enable individuals ‘to build up their human capital’ is upper-secondary education. Moreover, without secondary and university education, what education will teachers have so as to be able to teach children?” (Page 39)

I think the case of Korea shows that a focus on higher education only makes no sense, but if we think of socio-economic development as a process, then funding for education needs to take into account that skills needs shift towards more technology-oriented fields over time.