Short-run and Long-run Equity Issues Related to Increasing the Quality of Education - Example

Short-run and Long-run Equity Issues Related to Increasing the Quality of Education as Opposed to the Quantity Abstract This paper discusses the short-term and long-run equity concerns that are linked to increasing the quality of education rather than quantity. Although the ‘quality education’ concept is contentious in literature, the paper adopts a working definition that describes quality education as a combination of aspects that include healthy learners, a good learning environment, knowledge-based content, and quality processes and outcomes that have a positive contribution in the society. The paper identifies and discusses several issues such as funding, staffing, training, immigration, and social policies that have both short-term and lasting consequences to learners. The paper concludes by arguing that most short-run issues seem to occur because of the immediate changes that have to be made for purposes of boosting the quality of education. Failure to enhance equity in access to education generally means that in the long-term, children who could not equitably access quality education end up performing poorly in social and economic spheres and could be burdensome to an economy since their output is suboptimal. Introduction Throughout the world, education is touted as a basic human right (Todaro & Smith, 2012, p. 538). In particular, governments throughout the world have made policies that are meant to ensure that every child has access to basic education. In most developing countries, budgetary constraints which result from low-performing economies often mean that governments have to contend with compromised quality in education. The concept of quality education is contentious in literature. However, this paper will adopt the United Nations Children’s Fund’s (UNICEF) (2010) definition of quality education as the combination of aspects, which include healthy learners, learning environment, knowledge-based content, quality processes, and outcomes that contribute positively to a society. The organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2012) notes that when the quality of education is compromised, the society suffers the brunt of the inefficiencies created by the suboptimal knowledge base. Therefore, economically, societies which have high illiteracy levels have suboptimal social mobility and cohesion. Such societies also allocate higher budgets to addressing the effects of low quality education. Such consequences include higher criminality and higher dependencies (OECD, 2012). This research paper will discuss the short-run and long-term equity concerns that are linked to raising the quality of education rather than quantity. It is argued that increasing the quality of education brings up several equity issues since not all learners are able to make use of quality education opportunities. While quality education may be available to poor students or immigrant populations, for example, learners from such social backgrounds may need social interventions to fully utilise the opportunities given to them. Equity concerns linked to raising the quality of education in place of quantity A study conducted by Masino and Nino-Zarazua (2016, p. 59) found out that the provision of the right school infrastructure, learning resources, and competent human resources is one of the key drivers that governments use to enhance the quality of education in their respective jurisdictions. The learning materials and competent teachers all require significant budgets, which the concerned governments might have to finance from internal sources or with the help of other stakeholders such as donors. However, according to Lakdawalla (2002), quality education advocates in countries like the US have over the years advocated for a limited number of students in classes. In some states, for example, student numbers have been capped at 22 with the argument that that is the maximum number of students that a teacher can attend to effectively and efficiently. Lakdawalla (2002) notes that while most classes in the United States are not congested, the lack of adequate or quality human resources has short-term and long-term effects on equity in education accessibility. Notably, different classes may have to share the limited number of teachers, hence meaning that the students do not have optimal access to teachers as would be the case if public schools were fully staffed. A compromise that would go against the capping policy would combine classes so that all students have teachers. However, such a scenario would compromise quality because the teacher would be overworked. In a research conducted in Malawi, Chimombo (2005, p. 169) found out that the concept of quality education was relatively different. To the Malawians, quality education was made possible when children had a good learning environment, qualified teachers, enough resources (such as textbooks), and when the education was relevant to local needs. When the Malawian government initiated free and compulsory primary school education, for example, some parents opted not to have their children enrol in public schools because they perceived it as a waste of time (Chimombo, 2005, p. 168). Before free primary education was made compulsory, the demand for public schools was relatively higher because parents were of the view that the teacher-student ratio was still at an acceptable level and that the schools’ resources were not overly stretched (Chimombo, 2005, p. 168). With an increased number of children enrolling in schools and government failure to invest in infrastructure, human resources and other needed resources, the quality of education was compromised. Arguably, the short-term effect of quality education in the Malawian context led to a limited access to quality education, meaning that more children were out of school. In the long-term, the few students who would have had a good education would be economically empowered, while those who had missed out on proper schooling would create increased dependencies in the economy. Borrowing from the US context once more, Jacob and Ludwig (2009, p. 56) found out that schools that serve the minority and poor students did not have as much resources as those that served students from affluent neighbourhoods. Therefore, providing financial resources to schools that serve the poor would provide a viable short-term solution to some of the quality issues they face. Jacob and Ludwig further learnt that high-poverty schools did not have the capacity to enhance student learning because apart from low financing, such schools did not have optimal instruction capacity or operating practices. Therefore, if the quality of education in such schools was to be improved in the short-term, stakeholders such as governments and parents would need to invest more resources in professional development or even engage in selective hiring. In the long-term, a paradigm shift particularly in regard to operating practices would be required. Schools located in high-poverty areas also have relatively lower quality education especially where sufficient incentives are not offered to improve instruction and increase performance. According to Hanushek and Raymond (2005, p. 298) for example, school inspections were more likely to occur in urban schools than in rural schools where accessibility is hampered. Consequently, teachers and school administrators in urban-based schools are more likely to uphold quality practices compared to their peers in rural-based schools. Quality education is also influenced by the social context where schools are based. If the immediate environments where children live make it hard for them to make good use of education opportunities afforded to them, it does not matter the kind of investment that the government makes (Ludwig & Sawhill, 2007). It has been argued that unless deliberate government action is targeted at improving the socio-economic conditions of communities, quality education still cannot be fully attained particularly in environments where social justice issues remain neglected. Thus, Ludwig and Sawhill (2007) recommend for changes in social policies to be made and implemented for purposes of ensuring equity among communities. Arguably, social policy changes do not take effect immediately, and their impact on the quality of education may only be felt in the long-term. In the short-term however, increased hope may also increase the children’s ability to utilise any learning opportunities that the government provides to the community. In countries within the OECD, issues of equity in quality education are also prevalent as is evident in the Swedish case (Nicaise, Esping-Andersen, Pont & Tunstall, 2005). Nicaise et al. (2005) note that there has been an issue of equity even as Sweden continues issuing compulsory education to its citizenry. Of worrying concern are the differences that were evident between and across schools. Private schools were arguably at an advantage when compared to public schools, yet the former still received a total of six percent funding from the government. Immigrant populations and their place within the education system in many developed countries also raise an issue related to equity especially when quality education is considered. According to Nicaise et al. (2005), students from immigrant populations may experience segregation and may face difficulties trying to adapt to the host environment. When such incidents arise, equity in the access of quality education is compromised. In the short-term, the children from immigrant populations may not have the same capacity to obtain and retain knowledge when compared to their peers from the host communities. Although such children may go to the same schools and even access the same resources, their differences based on their immigrant statuses may place them at a disadvantage. In the long-term, their life chances may be comparatively lower when compared to children from the host communities. Nicaise et al. (2005) also observe that although primary education is often free and compulsory in most countries, issues of equity become more complex when children get to the secondary and tertiary levels. On the two levels, the cost of education increases, and the more equipped and well-resourced an institution is, the higher a student has to pay to get a chance to enrol in that institution. Children from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds effectively drop out of school at the secondary or tertiary levels. The short-term effect of such drop-out patterns is that such students start working in low-paying manual jobs and do not invest in their future as their affluent counterparts do. In the end, the low-income patterns among people from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds are perpetuated and it becomes harder to break the vicious cycle of poverty. Overall, increased emphasis on quality education has three possible long-term effects on those able to access such education (Benhabib & Spiegel, 2005; Hanushek & Wobmann, 2007). The first effect is labour productivity, meaning that people who are able to access quality education will in the long-term contribute more economic output. The second long-term effect as identified by Hanushek and Wobmann (2007) is that learners have an increased capacity to innovate and are therefore more likely to become active participants in the economy, particularly if the economy makes use of new technologies and innovations. The third long-term effect of quality education is that it facilitates the transmission and diffusion of knowledge, therefore positively contributing to economic growth (Benhabib & Spiegel, 2005). However, if issues of equity are not properly addressed early enough in a particular society, quality education can only widen the gap between the wealthy and the deprived. The foregoing argument is particularly true if the three effects of quality education are only experienced by adults whose childhood occurred in affluent communities where quality education was guaranteed. Conclusion Arguably, there are numerous short- and long-term equity concerns linked to raising the quality of education in place of quantity. Most short-run issues seem to occur because of the immediate changes that have to be made for purposes of boosting the quality of education. When new infrastructure has to be set, and new resources used, one can only hope that students will make use of the education opportunities afforded by such developments. Nonetheless, as has been indicated in this paper, the enhancement of infrastructure and resources within an education institution does not always solve the equity issues. Sometimes, social policies have to be developed and implemented to enhance the eagerness of students to make use of the education opportunities they have. In other cases, not fitting in (as is the case of immigrants) can hinder equal access to education and knowledge despite immigrant children schooling with others from the host community. The short-term issues that education stakeholders have to deal with relates to ensuring that every child can make good use of all the quality-based education opportunities that they can access. Failure to enhance equity in access to education generally means that in the long-term, children who could not equitably access quality education end up performing poorly in terms of social and economic outcomes, and could even become burdensome to the others who utilised the education opportunities that they had. References Benhabib, J., & Spiegel, M. (2005). Human capital and technology diffusion. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (pp. 935-966). Amsterdam: North Holland. Chimombo, J.P.G. (2005). Quantity versus quality in education: Case studies in Malawi. International Review of Education, 51, 155-172. Hanushek, E.A., & Raymond, M.E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327. Hanushek, E.A., & Wobmann, L. (2007). The role of education quality in economic growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 4122. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/7154/wps4122.pdf?sequence=1 Jacob, B.A., & Ludwig. J. (2009). Improving educational outcomes for poor children. Focus, 26(2), 56-61. Lakdawalla, D. (2002). Quality over quality. Education Next, 2(3). Retrieved from: http://educationnext.org/quantity-over-quality/ Ludwig, J., & Sawhill, I. (2007). Success by ten: Intervening early, often and effectively in the education of young children. Hamilton Project Discussion Paper. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. Masino, S., & Nino-Zarazua, M. (2016). What works to improve the quality of student learning in developing countries? International Journal of Educational Development, 48, 53-65. Nicaise, I., Esping-Andersen, G., Pont, B., & Tunstall, P. (2005). Equity in education. Thematic review. SWEDEN Country OECD Note. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/35892546.pdf Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/50293148.pdf Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S.C. (2012). Economic development (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2010). Defining quality in education. New York: Author. Read More