Taking financial literacy further: A look into how open access and OERs could help to resolve the issues of cost and responsibility.
In my previous post for OKHE1 I wrote about openness in financial education and how being able to address the idea of open access financial learning could greatly benefit students from a student support perspective. I highlighted that there seems to a low level of financial literacy amongst students, a common theme in the UK, and that although there were online resources available to help bridge the gap in knowledge students were still lacking confidence and support in this area.
When considering the current offering of financial literacy education it is clear that the delivery mechanism are somewhat limited. Either you must be in school and receiving education on finance through classroom teaching face-to-face or you can take you learning into your own hands and sign up to an online service such as those offered by Barclays Life Skills, NatWest’s MoneySense or Blackbullion. Although, as previously mentioned, these online applications are a step in the right direction they still require you to register allowing for the capture of your personal details thus leading me to personally believe that although they are not behind a pay wall they are still behind a wall of sorts which creates disengagement and goes against the themes of OERs being freely available and easily accessible.
With this access issue in mind in this piece I want to look at the reasons why we are struggling with developing OERs for financial literacy in particular. Through exploration of this area I hope to understand why cost and the argument over responsibility is inhibiting the development of support in this key area of learning and look at potential ways of reinvigorating the development of OERs for financial literacy training.
The financial cost
In recent years the rush to get open access learning online and available to all has stalled. As John Smith highlights in his look at MOOC’s from OKHE2 there has been a decline in the positive perceptions of this learning platform. With many an article also adding to the debate that open access can never truly be free we may have reached somewhat of an impasse. Robin Osborn argues that those who wish to access research have to pay a cost where they invest in the perquisite education to be able to understand the new research that is available to them, and it is this teaching to provide them with the skills to interpret the research where the cost lies.
“There is no such thing as free access to academic research. Academic research is not something to which free access is possible.” (Osborne, 2013)
Although this commentary does directly relate to the academic world you could also take from the comments that there are always costs involved with developing educational resources. Of course we should be rewarding those who develop OER’s fairly, through salaries and the like, that is not my argument. What I am merely questioning is whether people would still want to provide open access resources and learning if they are still going to be charged for the privilege. You may have many a researcher invested in sharing their findings openly and freely, but if they are constantly charged to allow this sharing opportunity will they at some point become fed up and revert to old practices of passing the cost onto the user? I am in no way suggesting that this will occur but it is easy to see how this could happen.
Many an academic journal will charge the researcher for the pleasure of publishing their article as an open access piece. Elsevier state that articles submitted to their platform as open access will have their publication funded by payments made by authors, the author’s institution or funding bodies. This is similar across multiple journal platforms. This brings us back to Robin Osborne’s point that there is always a costs involved when it comes to open access and although the cost is not heaped upon the reader it is passed back to the author or the author’s institution asking them to make a financial commitment in order to publish new research which would be openly accessible to all.
The same goes for developing and maintaining a financial literacy programme. MyBnk charges for their face-to-face training sessions, which in itself is fair as educators come to you to deliver a service and run workshops. Blackbullion, utilised by many a UK and Australian university to help develop financial awareness amongst students, charge a monthly fee to the institution to be able to utilise their learning platform. As the National Financial Educators Council (NFEC) state common dilemmas are faced when developing financial education training programmes. These can include whether to design from scratch and develop a unique curriculum or whether to piece together online resources. Either way there is always a cost involved that is not just monetary but also time based.
NFEC state that “course licensing is by far the most common means of providing a comprehensive curriculum” (National Financial Educators Council, 2018). Blackbullion have clearly entered the market of financial education with the aim of providing digital financial education that is effective and license their platform to a variety of higher education institutions for use with their students. Clearly, for a university, this is the most cost effective route to take when trying to support the financial learning of their students. However — and I base this next comment on my research undertaken for The Changing Landscape of Higher Education which was based around student utilisation and effectiveness of Blackbullion — licensing of a platform to support financial learning is only worth the cost if the uptake and engagement with the platform itself is beneficial to the users. In the case of Blackbullion and the University of Manchester the platform does not inspire financial learning, it is merely used a stool to get through the hardship fund application process, therefore this could be considered a sunk cost and brings us full circle to Osborne’s point that open access is never truly free.
Responsibility
My next train of thought regarding the concerns around the development of OERs in financial literacy take me to responsibility. Who is responsible for developing and delivering financial education and ensuring the correct information is being disseminated?
Way back in 2011 and 2012 the UK Government conducted an inquiry to establish what practice existed for financial education in further education. This followed on from the previous inquiry which addressed the same question at primary and secondary education levels which then led to compulsory financial education being included into the teaching curriculum.
The report focusing on further education concluded that a set of standards for financial education should be developed to aid in delivery of teachings and that when not included in the curriculum any education that is provided is not as effective as when it falls within core chosen curriculum.
It is clear that there is a multitude of innovative financial training going on in further education. Schools, colleges and the like are aware that students aged 16+ need financial literacy training but without the “mandatory” learning element many educators are saying that what is provided is just not effective. There is a lack of consistency in the content delivered and educators feel they are not reaching enough students.
Although helpful in highlighting the current problems within the further education sector what the further education report fails to do is indicate who is going to look into the development of the recommended set of standards for financial literacy in further education and whether or not the Government will seek to include financial education as a mandatory element in this education sector. As yet no such report has been conducted for higher education.
When considering that students aged sixteen and over have no mandated financial education you may agree that schools and colleges are doing all they can to instil financial knowledge in their students and by doing so are taking on the responsibility of ensuring their students are taught to an appropriate level. However, from the APPG report, it is clear that those conducting the inquiry acknowledge that without standards and an enforced curriculum it is not possible to ensure all students in further education are receiving the correct level of financial education. In this case is the Government not responsible for ensuring that those in further education are able to benefit from the same commitment to financial literacy training as it offer to those in primary and secondary education? As this article by Kirsten Louise Jones suggests when it comes to financial education the Government think it is the responsibility of the school to provide the training. On the other side of the coin researchers have suggested that it is the lack of financial education in schools, and thereby the curriculum that is having the impact and therefore it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure relevant training is included up to an beyond the age of sixteen.
As yet no such report or inquiry has been conducted for higher education however if we extrapolate the results from the further education APPG report could we not infer that the issue of financial literacy would possibly get worse? I would suggest we have reached a point where deciding who has responsibility over educating students in financial skills should be considered a high priority.
If we briefly consider how well the implementation of the financial education in the curriculum has gone we can see that those on the front line (the teachers) are less than impressed. This report cites multiple barriers to financial education including it being an area of low prioritisation even though it is written into the curriculum, inadequate funding and, more worryingly, two thirds of schools commenting that teachers lack the skills needed to teach financial education. So, even though the government included financial education in the curriculum for students up to the age of sixteen it doesn’t look like all is going well behind the scenes in the classroom.
Interestingly an article from the Independent suggests it is the responsibility of the university to include money management lessons in all courses, regardless of subject. This is partially being developed with many universities offering their own versions of financial literacy training through online platforms and money advisors but, as with further education, as there are no set guidelines or standards to follow each institution is going about it in their own individual way.
The same article swiftly follows up their comments on placing responsibility for financial training on universities by comments that the Government also needs to be involved in educating young adults in personal finance making reference to overhauling the higher education curriculum as a whole. Maybe, if this were to happen, another set of standard could be suggested but as the further education sector awaits further guidance and support the higher education sector may be waiting sometime for similar actions to occur.
As the argument over who is and isn’t responsible for financial education persists more and more students are entering university with a below average knowledge of financial concepts and find themselves struggling to manage their own money at a time when loans and credit are being offered to them on a platter. Allowing this argument to continue just prolongs the problem and leaves more of our students open to financial issues at an early age.
Beyond cost and responsibility
Clearly the issues of cost and responsibility will not be solved overnight. However it is my belief that they could be partially resolved by producing and maintaining OERs to allow for reinforced classroom-based learning and independent study. I tend to agree with the Independent article and believe that universities should be offering financial literacy education to their students as part of a compulsory curriculum. I know the word compulsory will push against a lot of people’s accepted norms for university life here but if a form of compulsory financial education was introduced in higher education we would be certain that key concepts were being taught throughout the sector in a consistent manner. Of course the responsibility here would lie with not only the Government for setting the standard but also with the institutions to ensure this learning takes place.
Given the amount charged for a university education do we not have a duty of care to ensure our students are fully equipped to be able to understand their financial commitments? Financial literacy teachings at university have shown to have a positive effect as shown here in an article about Southern Connecticut State University in America therefore we should be looking to develop and share our own relevant teachings across our own Higher Education (HE) sector.
The introduction of consistent and relevant OERs could relieve some of the pressure on HE institutions, as long as they followed an agreed standard. The sector could ensure teaching goals are being met through a combined practice of sharing and utilising resources from a single source that provided and supported the production of OERs for higher education use. The post from Cath Wasiuk in OKHE1 about bitesize staff development in just 1 minute of learning brings about another interesting idea. Could the sector not utilise this same idea of 1minuteCPD to encourage open learning in financial concepts amongst students. The idea of 1minuteCPD, a completely open and freely available resource, seems to tick a lot of boxes when it comes to teaching financial education. If put together correctly a resource such as this could be shared amongst the higher education sector as a “go-to” to support financial education and could support both compulsory teaching and independent learning in an easily digestible form.
If we wanted to be even more innovative the whole higher education sector could make their financial education teachings available to the wider student community to access both before admission and after graduation as a continuous support mechanism for those students moving on from further to higher education and beyond. This idea of wider community access to OERs could help ensure that students being admitted to university could freely understand their financial commitment even before they get there and support them through their Student Finance applications, opening bank accounts and various other key financial journeys they may need to go through before arrival at university. Once at university, and after graduation, this continued learning and availability of open access resources and education could help to offer continuous learning opportunities and development of financial skills throughout their lives helping them to avoid all manner of financial pitfalls.
Of course, this is my ideal financial world and we will need to see what happens next. Dare I say it, Brexit could change everything…
