Education and Public Good(s)

Posted on by

I’ve recently reviewed the UNESCO Policy Paper 34 which argues for better funding, research for improved outcomes, and networks of peer learning, as part of the “global public goods in education” and calls on the “international community to develop a joint vision and finance their provision sustainably” ((UNESCO, 2018, para 1). Two key points caught my attention:

“Global public goods are the institutions, mechanisms and outcomes that provide benefits to all, transcend borders and extend across generations.”

“One cross-cutting global public good is knowledge for global development. In the case of education, such knowledge takes three forms: comparable data; research on issues of global relevance; and peer learning networks. These need to build on local capacity”

UNESCO, 2018, paragraph 2

What caught my attention was the reference to these comparative data, research with global relevance, and peer-learning networks as ‘public goods’. This contrasted with another reading by Eye (1974) that infers the laws of learning and the laws of material goods are different in their storage and use. Eye (1974) states “knowledge, as a commodity in this exacting world, seems inexhaustible” (paragraph 2) and that the “laws of learning support the concept of additiveness …. the mind has built-in multipliers” (paragraph 8). Eye concludes his writing with a call to action for the “acquisition of knowledge, which includes values” as a “primary goal for people of all ages, all lands, and all destinies” (p. 447). This call is echoed in the recent UNESCO Policy paper, with an equally urgent call for sustainable funding for the production of these public educational goods, since they are non-rivalrous and non-exludable – they are available for all, across borders and boundaries. Consumption does not diminish their availability. These knowledge goods, as public goods, are abundantly available for all across the globe. Investing in the production of these goods would appear to be valuable return on investments. Eye (1974) argues against applying the rules of scarcity, as is done when referring to material goods, when considering knowledge as a commodity.

What interests me the most is the recognition that networks are identified as a public educational good since they “diffuse existing knowledge and help countries exchange lessons from the implementation of education policies for capacity development and system improvement”. With my recent experience working with Dr. Rekha Chavhan in Mumbai, India, as part of the UNESCO Open Education for a Better World (OE4BW) project, this recognition that our efforts to collaborate and exchange knowledge beyond borders or boundaries is adding to the ‘public good(s)’ and potentially multiplying the benefit for others across the globe.

These ideas are coalesce with the blog post I’ve written about teacher educators as networked professional learners (Oddone, Hughes, and Lupton, 2019) [Produsage is Palimpsestic]. Are these same networks considered public good(s) and if so, can networking be considered for funding as a means of production and dissemination of scholarly knowledge? This would answer the underlying issue in professional networking as unpaid and un-valued academic endeavour, which is a resounding issue not only in higher education, but in K-12 educational contexts. Can the networking practice of teacher educators, preservice teachers, and teachers in classroom contexts be recognized and supported in this UNESCO effort to build a global network of public good(s), in a sustained and open manner?

References

Eye, G. G. (1974). As far as Eye can see: Knowledge abundance in an environment of scarcity. The Journal of Educational Research, 67(10), 445–447. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/27536651

UNESCO. (2018, March). Fulfilling our collective responsibility: financing global public goods in education – UNESCO Digital Library. Retrieved August 1, 2019, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261530