By Penny Costoglou
Published September 2001
The pressure to succeed with both an education and a job is high in our society. People are frequently judged by this criteria. However, it has long been known that education itself can be a double-edged sword. It is by no means a sure bet for success. Many people work against tremendous odds and build up giant debts in order to make their dreams and the dreams of others (who do the pressuring) become real.
The first barrier is by far the most significant and is a constituent part of the education system. All those who attempt to become educated, from kindergarten to post-secondary education are subjected to its rules. Ivan Illich described it best, based on his experience as university president in Puerto Rico in the 1950s. He stated, “Nobody faced the fact that schooling served at least in Puerto Rico, to compound the native poverty of half the children with a new internalized sense of guilt for not having made it. I therefore came to the conclusion that schools inevitably are a system to produce dropouts, and to produce more dropouts than successes. .. I discovered that they really acted as a lottery system in which those who didn’t make it, didn’t just lose what they had paid in, but were also stigmatized as inferior for the rest of their lives.”
The sting of failure can be equally strong in Canada. There are other reasons for failure, such as poor children who experience hunger and homelessness. Other children miss the opportunities of daily reading. There are many other reasons which segregate poor children from rich children, but there are fewer solutions.
The affordability of post-secondary education is a barrier that adult children of low-income families face. The sharp rise in tuition has left many people with little financial ability to pursue education. In fact, since 1980, tuition fees have jumped 115%, while average incomes have risen by 1% on a yearly basis. This is a problem that governments should address.
The National Anti-Poverty Organization states that, if a social assistance recipient wanted to be a doctor, he/she must be helped in a threefold way: a) pay the recipient while in school, b) freeze tuition hikes, and c) give out grants to recipients and other low-income students. These proposals are identical to what students in the 60s and 70s received under the federal government.
As it stands now, justice tips the scale in favour of well-to-do students attending university over low-income students attending university. Those who can rely on their parents for financial help have a clear advantage over families on social assistance who clearly do not have the financial resources to help out.
To describe the injustice of the poor when it comes to training I interviewed two low- income students who were frustrated by the OSAP system, but were lucky enough to receive training at the Working Centre. (Their names are fictionalized)
Steve’s Training
The first student interviewed is Steve. Steve went to Centennial College in Toronto, with OSAP and lived in residence, where he paid $350 a month. The next year, (because Centennial College is affiliated with the University of Toronto), more students from U of T came to Centennial College to live and Steve had to leave residence. His choice was to either live in Toronto and accumulate large amounts of debt (because Toronto is a very expensive city to live in) or discontinue his dream and come back to Kitchener. Steve did the latter.
He came back to Kitchener and tried to go to Conestoga College on OSAP. He stayed only four months because Conestoga College did not offer the diploma that he wanted. Steve wanted the A+ diploma which is all about troubleshooting, repairing and building computers. He thought of going to DEVRY, or Toronto School of Business, but the thousands of dollars they ask for tuition fees, plus extra money for living expenses, were insurmountable.
He is now grateful that he can get his certification of A+ course at the Working Centre which only charges $10 a month. The course work may take up to a year to finish, since there are limited spaces, and it is self-directed. The same course at Toronto School of Business takes only weeks to finish. Steve owes $12,000 in student loans. Because he had many doors close on him, he will not be able to pay the money owed to the government until he gets a well-paying job. Meanwhile, he is receiving “nasty” letters from the government wanting its money back. (Even if you go bankrupt, you still have to pay back the loans).
Ted’s Training
The second person I interviewed had similar problems with the system. His name is Ted. Ted received, on OSAP, his diploma from Toronto School of Business in 1995 as a Microcomputer Electronic Technician. He then became ill and went on Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). He wanted to get the A+ program at Conestoga College but ODSP steered him towards OSAP. The course at Conestoga College was financially out of reach. The benefit of going to Conestoga College was that the course would take only six weeks to complete on a full-time basis. The expenses deterred him from taking the course. He now takes A+ at the Working Centre, where he will be certified after he writes the final exam.
Although Ted and Steve were fortunate enough to work at their certification at the Working Centre, many other students are not so lucky.
A Third Example
The third example is that of a premed social assistance recipient whom the new welfare laws thwarted when she wanted to go back to school. She is a single mom living in London, Ontario, who was ordered to pay welfare back $2,180. She had applied for OSAP while staying on welfare. OSAP didn’t come through till six months later. Meanwhile she continued to be on welfare. Once her OSAP came, she phoned the welfare office and told them to stop sending her cheques. Welfare wanted its money back, because it considers OSAP (whether you receive it now or six months down the road) to cover expenses for the whole year, as it didn’t matter when you get it.4 This student, trying to make her life better, by contributing to society after she graduates, was punished by the system for being on social assistance. She, among others, was a victim of a cruel law.
In 1996, the cost of a four year program exceeded $50,000 for students living away from home and $25,000 for students living at home. These amounts are very hard to pay back.
This trend robs the critical intellect of our society and eliminates the diversity of student population, as it does not reflect a well-rounded society. Minds which think alike ask no questions, make no revisions, and see society through rose-coloured glasses.
Reform is not foreseen in the future. What is foreseen in the future is low-income students taking longer to achieve their educational goals, if at all.
Will support for those seeking a new future through education become available?
