Search results

The standard conclusion from adult learning studies is that, far from providing an opportunity for ‘second chance’ education, life-long learning is the exemplar par excellence of the ‘rich getting richer’. Would the educationally disadvantaged actually improve their labour market situation were they to pursue more education and training? The answer to this question hinges on why the least educated are also the least likely to upgrade their skills. There are two competing hypotheses. The first hypothesis suggests that participation differences reflect the fact that less educated individuals are more likely to face barriers to participation (such as cost, lack of employer support, and family responsibilities). The second hypothesis, which arises from human capital theory, predicts that the least educated are the least likely to participate because they are also the least likely to gain from their participation. This paper contributes to the debate by analyzing data from two large-scale Canadian surveys on adult education and training to enhance our understanding of why the participation gap persists. In this paper, we ask three questions: (1) Which groups are most likely to report that a learning episode helped them achieve a positive labour market outcome (such as a increasing income, obtaining a promotion or changing jobs)? Are there significant differences across initial education groups? Do other factors such as type and duration of learning and demographic and workplace characteristics make a difference? (2) If certain types of learning do make a difference, who is likely to get these types of learning. While we know that the least educated are the least likely to participate in training we don’t know if there are important differences across education groups in the quality of training received. (3) Finally, we address the question of how to close the participation gap. We ask, among the least educated, what differentiates those who participate from those who don’t? Which characteristics are most likely to lead to participation? Our results show contrary to human capital theory, the least educated are actually more likely than their more educated counterparts to report a positive labour market outcome. Moreover, contrary to our expectations, among those who do learn, the least educated are just as likely as their more educated counterparts to be engaged in types of learning that are associated with high labour market potential. Finally, we find that at least with respect to four key predictors (sex, marital status, occupation and income) the determinants of participation are different for the least educated. Among the least educated, learners are equally likely to be men or women, and more likely to be single or divorced rather than married, in managerial occupations rather than blue collar or clerical sales and services occupations, and more likely to have higher incomes. While not conclusive, our findings are broadly consistent with the ‘barriers to learning’ hypothesis.