Financing adult learning and education. The way forward - what works, how and why?

Abstract

Financing adult learning and education (ALE) is a highly discussed and, at times, even controversial topic. There are various studies, publications, and projects dealing with it, and the financing challenges of the modern world make it even more complex and demanding. While financing adult education was primarily considered in the second half of the 20th century to be the responsibility of the state (especially in relation to marginalised groups or the field of literacy and basic education), nowadays there is a growing tendency to consider adult education to be exclusively a matter of personal responsibility that should be financed by adult learners themselves or by companies and the private sector, or, alternatively, by communities or philanthropies. Private finance is believed to play an increasingly important role in bringing innovation to the education sector, to increase efficiency, boost development of the sector, and bring additional resources (in the OECD countries, employers pay the largest share – OECD, 2019). At the same time, criticism towards engagement of the private sector in education is very loud. A clear call to reconsider the approach to financing and to diversify the actors came from UNESCO: “The expansion of access to education worldwide over the past several decades is placing greater pressure on public financing. Additionally, the demand has grown in recent years for voice in public affairs and for the involvement of non-state actors in education, at both national and global levels. This diversification of partnerships is blurring the boundaries between public and private, posing problems for the democratic governance of education. In short, there is a growing need to reconcile the contributions and demands of the three regulators of social behaviour: society, state and market” (UNESCO, 2015). The OECD also calls for a “healthy” mix of the involvement of the government, employers, and individuals in financing adult learning (OECD, 2019). The lack of data and of a methodology of collecting data about financing ALE adds to the challenge in relation to the complex diversity of sources and ways of financing. Since its first edition, the UNESCO/UIL’s Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE) has been addressing this problem. The 2030 Agenda also emphasised the importance of the issue, since financing of the ambitious Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality education and promoting lifelong opportunities for all) remains a huge problem. The current policy recommendations see two possible approaches: national resource mobilisation and blended financing, that promise to solve a majority of the difficulties caused by the lack of resources. They dominate the discussions in the UN, the OECD, and the World Bank. Both approaches have certain importance, but there is also a growing body of analysis from civil society and from research organisations suggesting numerous limitations and risks these two approaches have as a tool for achieving the SDGs, especially in developing countries. While several organisations have undertaken research into returns on investment in adult education, as well as the effectiveness in terms of steering education, few attempts have been made to explore different success factors depending on the funding tools and mechanisms. Nobody denies that, as the OECD says, “the SDGs and Paris Agreement require new approaches and innovative solutions to finance development outcomes” (OECD, 2018), and this applies for all countries, regardless of their level of development. Strategic public investment, mobilised private investment, official development assistance – they should operate towards the implementation of the 2030 promise of quality education and lifelong learning for all, meaning: for adults too. For that purpose, there is a need for further critical reviews of the main funding sources and financing mechanisms and their implementation: an analysis of successes and failures; discussions of the success factors and the risks: the need to identify the areas of the best possible use of the public funds, as well as the role of the main funding actors for adult education, such as state and broad range of other social partners and stakeholders. That is the background of the decision of two partners to come together for such study: DVV International – The Institute for International Cooperation of the Deutscher Volkshochschul-Verband e.V. (DVV), the German Adult Education Association, the leading professional organisation in the field of adult education and development cooperation, which has supported adult education and lifelong learning for 50 years worldwide, and The International Council for Adult Education (ICAE) – a global network created in 1973 with a specific mandate to advocate youth and adult learning and education as a universal human right, which is also instrumental in achieving economic, cultural, social and ecological justice, and enhancing international peace and understanding, especially for vulnerable populations. With global interest and relevant experience in international work, DVV International and the ICAE are committed to finding efficient ways to support adult education and the best financing mechanisms to meet the challenges of the contemporary development. As a part of a global project, they have undertaken a study on financing adult learning in education, which is to be used in the DVV International’s project work worldwide, as well as in the lobby and advocacy work for adult learning and education in different contexts and by various actors. The study addressed the following questions: ● Which funding sources and schemes have proven successful and in which contexts? ● What are the factors of success and the determinants of substantial progress through the implementation of various funding schemes? What should be done for the “smart” investment in adult education? ● What are the recommendations, the dos and don’ts in various funding models and schemes? The terminology and language are not the focus of this study, therefore ‘financing and funding models’ refers simply to the main sources of the financial support to ALE, i.e. where the money comes from (state budget, private sector – industry, official development assistance, personal investment), with combinations and variations thereof, and not on the specific financing mechanisms and instruments that could be applied within those main funding models. This study, conducted by the ICAE and commissioned by DVV International, follows a research logic – description of the development of the problem, its importance, the current state of art, description of the main sample – models, presentation of the chosen examples, and drawing conclusions and recommendations. The structure reflects the following: ● Firstly, the study offers, a short view of the main recent research dealing directly or indirectly with the funding and financing ALE, which can be also a resource for further exploration and data collection; ● The study explores the main paradigms in understanding ALE and the financing models emerging from these paradigms and relying on them, with the short development of the main paradigms and approaches, in relation to the political and economic context. ● It explains why financing ALE is an important problem by providing an overview of the benefits of funding ALE, from various studies and researches, indicating why it is so important to deal with this problem; ● Having in mind the powerful influence the global developments today have on most of the countries (directly or indirectly), the study provides an analysis of where financing ALE is today in the global policy agendas, especially in the mainstream. (the UN, the OECD); ● UNESCO and CONFINTEA are shown as the only regular global frame for the systemic collection of data on financing ALE; ● This part is complemented with the figures illustrating the current situation in financing ALE, thereby underlining the need and importance of ALE, but also the challenges that funding ALE is facing; ● In the second chapter, six good practice models are chosen from different regions, identifying success factors, contextual preconditions, and working mechanisms. Although the examples represent the main models chosen for this study, they are not ‘pure’ and they contain some elements of the other models. This fact reflects the reality of ALE in many countries, and enables more cross-country comparisons and conclusions: • The example from Ethiopia is mainly government-supported ALE, with some elements of ODA, state and non-state actors; Canada provided an example of public-supported ALE with a decentralised approach; • In the examples from Latin America there is a combination of public funds and ODA support and the private sector, with the specific cross-country approach, involving 12 countries; • The example from Germany offers insight into the specific model of support within the metal and electrical industries, exploring individual investments and state support; • In New Zealand, governmental support is crucial, and support to ALE is embedded in the set of measures for achieving goals in other areas, especially around addressing inequities; • Serbia presents an example of ODA typical for South East Europe, where EU support through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance is combined with the public investment.