Adult Basic Education Funding in British Columbia

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Participation in terms of enrolment and involvement
ABE funding shortage in B. C.
Conclusion
References

Abstract

The following paper is devoted to the issue of the Adult Basic Education (ABE) fund decrease in British Columbia. The paper argues that the shortages of ABE funding are unjustified: funding decrease, together with the elimination of free tuition, deprives adult learners of education opportunities. Such practice is not only a violation of their rights but also a disadvantage to the economy since the universities cannot train enough human resources without the government’s assistance. Participation in ABE about the literature is reviewed from the perspectives of all shareholders. Relevant sources supporting the views presented in the paper are studied and referenced.

Introduction

ABE is a term referring to an array of services available to adult students. The programs are supposed to help such learners in a variety of achievements. Some learners need their basic skills (such as reading and writing) to be honed. Others require more advanced stages of their basic education to serve as a platform for subsequent education and development.

As practice shows, ABE issues require active participation from all shareholders: the learners themselves, the universities, and other institutions providing such services, and finally, the governments. The latter is supposed to assist higher education institutions (HEIs) in providing learning opportunities to adults. The governmental assistance is required not least because such learners are generally likely to be excluded from the labor market, which is disadvantageous for the economy. With that in mind, the British Columbian shortage of ABE funding appears to be quite unreasonable: it is likely to harm low-income learners, heighten the poverty barrier, and generally decrease adult learners’ enrolment.

Participation in terms of enrolment and involvement

For the best part of it, “Adult Basic Education Is a Basic Right” blog contributors’ posts are concerned with governmental involvement in ABE issues in B. C. On the other hand, participation in terms of student enrolment refrains in the majority of the entries. Among other things, they often mention such participatory motivations as personal and career opportunities, the association between learning and money-making, and the support the adult students receive from the HEIs (Horvat, 2016, April 8). In other words, adult learners are portrayed as the ones aiming to count their innate capabilities up to their value as employees; education, therefore, is regarded as the perfect (and the only) means of doing so.

Participation in terms of involvement, contrastingly, refers to the role of HEIs and the government in adult education. It appears that involvement is largely within the interest of the latter (Smith, 2016). Indeed, the government is supposed to be directly concerned with the training of the unemployed and the vulnerable. Still, the evidence provided by the blog contributors speaks for the inadequacy of governmental policies about ABE issues.

ABE funding shortage in B. C.

President of Simon Fraser University insists that the universities alone cannot cater for adult education demand, assuming the necessity of governmental assistance at that (Smith, 2016). Wider access to education would increase adult enrolment, alleviate the low-income learners’ burden, and diminish the poverty barrier (Smythe, 2015). With free tuition eliminated, the low-income students visibly suffer.

The granting policies are designed to sort out the higher-income students and assist the low-income ones. Such policies cannot be deemed entirely adequate since the majority of the adult students requiring basic education are, logically, low-income (Horvat, 2016, February 5). The grants themselves are present but they are rather a necessity than a perk, considering that the average tuition costs for adults run as high as $5000 per year (Horvat, 2016, April 8). At that, the grants are taxable, which exacerbates the low-income adult learners’ condition further still.

Vancouver School Board voiced its objection to the cuts in funding, referring to them as “chronic” (Horvat, 2016, May 3, para. 1). Indeed, a variety of B. C. parties seem to have been cutting the funds for decades in the run. Such policies are not only disadvantageous for vulnerable low-income students but also well-nigh discriminatory. The institutional support that those in need of ABE are supposed to receive, therefore, is nowhere to be seen.

At the same time, the loss in ABE core funds implicitly violates the most basic of the adult students’ rights (Horvat, 2016, May 28). When the governmental involvement is askew, the students’ aspirations are not satisfied, which is quite likely to decrease enrolment rates and general interest in education on the side of the major shareholders – the students themselves.

Conclusion

To conclude, the shortage of ABE funds in B. C. can hardly be deemed justified. Paired with free tuition elimination, the lack of funding denies access to education to a considerable share of adult students (considering that most of them are on or below the poverty line). Additionally, high education costs further decrease the adults’ motivation to receive an education. That, and the fact that HEIs cannot act on their own, is likely to leave the country without valuable human resources and impoverish those who would otherwise be likely to prosper.