Barriers to Education

Cross (1981) has categorized barriers to learning into three groups: institutional, situational, and dispositional. Distance education can address some of the institutional barriers, such as class scheduling, entrance requirements, and, perhaps, fee structures. (Although the shift to user-pay in the public sector is erecting new barriers to low income students.) It can also help to overcome many situational barriers facing students in isolated locations and those with demanding family, work, and community commitments. In relation to dispositional factors associated with previous learning difficulties or socioeconomic factors, distance education may have few advantages. Indeed the dependence upon written material and “independent” study of those materials may not aid students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are used to social, dialogical learning that builds on personal experience. Cross does not sufficiently emphasize the socially constructed barriers of gender, class, and ethnicity (all categorized as situational) that open learning institutions need to address.

A good example of a distance learning institution committed to overcoming barriers to education is Athabasca University (AU), whose mission statement begins by declaring that:

Athabasca University is dedicated to the removal of barriers that traditionally restrict access to and success in university-level studies and to increasing equality of educational opportunity for all adult Canadians regardless of their geographical location and prior academic credentials.

This statement, however, is nonspecific. It does not specifically identify the “barriers that traditionally restrict access.” Although AU can claim some success in removing some barriers, particularly because of its policy of open entry and distance delivery, Athabasca, in common with other open universities and colleges, has not substantially increased social equality of educational opportunity. In this regard, Athabasca’s performance (illustrated below) is probably only marginally better than that of traditional universities.

The educational literature emphasizes the ways in which the socially constructed barriers of gender, class, and ethnicity have restricted access to educational opportunity. Other factors such as physical disability, age, and geographical location can also restrict access. Educationally disadvantaged groups, which include native peoples, women (particularly low paid, single parents, and welfare recipients), the working class (particularly unskilled, low paid, and unemployed), the physically challenged, immigrants (particularly non-white and non-English/French speakers in a Canadian context), northern and rural residents, older students, and prisoners, continue to be under-represented in post-secondary education (Ghosh & Ray, 1987; Livingstone, 1983; McIlroy, 1993).

Also, while private corporations are able to make use of colleges and universities for research purposes or training, other institutions, including non-profit and voluntary organizations, co-operatives, and labour unions, have been poorly served by them. Regardless of the variety of reasons that may be used to explain this situation, this observation nonetheless illustrates limited group and individual “access” for some to the resources of the colleges and universities.

Despite the previous comments, distance education, in general, can claim some success in terms of increasing access. For instance, some distance educators have successfully targeted courses at isolated groups such as aboriginal communities or prisoners and have achieved greater access for such groups than traditional institutions. Distance education has also attracted women students, who are sometimes referred to in the literature as coming to the institution for a “second chance.” For many of these women, however, learning via distance education may more accurately be considered a “first chance” to pursue a university education. For example, approximately 67% of AU’s students are women, the majority of whom may have had some post-secondary college education but may not have had the opportunity to complete their university studies. The opportunity to attain a university degree is particularly important given the higher correlation for women than men between earnings and educational qualification. (It should be noted that women students are now at or approaching 50% or more of the undergraduate full-time student population of Canadian universities. Although they continue to be under-represented in some areas, such as science and engineering, and over-represented in others, such as nursing and education. There are fewer full-time women PhD students, “second” degree students-law and medicine-and faculty. [University of Alberta, 1992])

It is worth noting, however, that with the possible exception of native students, women students at AU are not concentrated within the disadvantaged groups-the lower paid or welfare single parent. Distance education, then, while intending to increase access for disadvantaged groups, also increases access for older students who may be geographically isolated or excluded from regular classes because of shift patterns, seasonal or other kinds of work, and family and community commitments, many of whom, however, may come from the same socioeconomic groups as mainstream students.

The above examples demonstrate that there has been some success in meeting the objectives of open access, particularly compared to the performance of traditional universities. In addition, with particular reference to Athabasca University, such features as open year-round enrolments, comprehensive packaged materials, and telephone tutoring have been successful in removing some barriers and attracting:

• women
• older students-63% of AU students are between the ages of 25 and 44, only 25% are younger than 25 years
• part-time students-AU is increasingly attracting younger learners who are registered as full-time students at other institutions but who take one or two AU courses to expedite program completion. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of AU students are studying part-time
• rural and northern residents-allowing students to study at a time and place of their choosing.

However, much more work is needed if barriers are to be more effectively removed and distance education is to become equally “open” to all socioeconomic and ethnic groups. If the mission of distance education-in common with all colleges and universities-is to contribute to a “democratic” and “civilized” society (Taylor, 1993), then democratic access is key to institutional success. Some, who speak of the importance of maintaining a focus on excellence, will argue that to increase access is to lower standards. This notion confuses “excellence” with “elitism” and the latter does not constitute education for democracy