Arka news agency recently reported that according to Mr. Armen Ashotian, the development of distance learning is very important for Armenia. Mr. Ashotian is the Chairman of the parliamentary standing Committee on Science, Education, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs (CSECSY).
Considered as the rising star of the pro-Russian wing of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, Mr. Ashotian provoked a controversy last September by taking position in favor of the construction of a chapel within the National Assembly premises. A clear violation of the principles of secularism and the impartiality of the State, the project is nevertheless under way. Mr. Ashotian later tried to justify his remarks by claiming that Armenian MPs would work much better if they had the opportunity to pray when they attended parliamentary sessions.
In October, he claimed that the main reason behind the recent rise in violent acts by the organized crime was the Armenian T.V. programming. According to Mr. Ashotian, Armenian channels air too many violent movies and serials. This was yet another strange assertion, a potentially antidemocratic one, and undoubtedly a contribution to theories of violence.
Discovering Distance Learning
“Distance learning in Armenia is underdeveloped and even missing. Whereas it has many advantages,” he said adding that distance education is very democratic since it bridges the gap between low-income and high-income students.
According to Mr. Ashotian’s calculations, distance education will cost universities much less and it will therefore enable them to lower their tuition fees. “Besides, students from provinces will not have to come to Yerevan. The distance learning will give them a chance to obtain education in their provinces.”
The lawmaker believes that the development of distance learning will not only make education accessible to young people from low-income provincial families but will also ease "the burden" over the city of Yerevan and enhance "the competitiveness of Armenian universities".
He also thinks that the development of distance learning in Armenia is hampered by the lack of adequate legislation; a problem that his colleague, the Minister of Education and Science, will address very shortly.
The New Blunder
To explain the lack of competitiveness of Armenian higher education, many factors have been signaled out including by the current authorities themselves (the President, the Prime Minister, etc.): Widespread corruption, insufficient government funding, an Education Ministry plagued by bureaucratic inertia and incompetence, programs with low relevance to the job market… but this is the first time that someone puts the blame on the low-income provincial students.
If I understand Mr. Ashotian well, Armenian universities spend their resources, time and energy on integrating and accommodating these students. Therefore, if they do not come to the capital, universities will be able to focus more, in which case they will become more competitive.
It is unclear, however, how these people distract Armenian universities so much as, due to lack of funding and the remnants of Soviet-era mentality, Armenian universities provide absolutely no services to students whether they are high-income urbanites or low-income provincials.
Moreover, the presence of provincials creates a mixed social setting which allows for social and cultural interactions, enriches students’ educational experiences and can contribute to social mobility. In democratic countries, universities – particularly public universities – go much further and actively seek students from diverse backgrounds – less affluent families or racial and ethnic minorities – by proposing affirmative action plans and need-based scholarship schemes.
Segregating students on class and location bases, reserving on-campus education for the wealthy and establishing distance education for the poor, is a regressive idea as it can only reinforce the existing social stratification and aggravate inequalities in the country.
And the worse is that the proposed segregation is being presented as a “democratic” plan that will favor provincial students as they will not “have” to come to Yerevan.
Controversies & Constraints
In the light of the experiences of different countries, it has not been clearly established yet whether distance learning improves access without sacrificing quality, or equity, and the role that ICTs play in delivering distance learning. These continue to be controversial topics that warrant further research and debate. It is unclear how Mr. Ashotian came up with such distinct opinions about the subject.
It is true that in countries such as Canada where distances are vast, the ICTs are well-developed, the Internet services are rather inexpensive, and education providers are better organized, distance education can be used to increase access. Such a policy mainly targets those who have traditionally been excluded from educational opportunities (e.g. youth in remote villages or improvished indigenous communities), in other words, “new” segments/groups of the population. This is why, it is claimed, distance education increases access.
Mr. Ashotian, however, proposes distance education as substitute to studying on-campus for those who until now have come to the capital to pursue their education. So improving access doesn’t seem to be his main objective.
Moreover, Armenia is a small country where distances cannot be considered as major barriers to higher education. Such a strategy may indeed be appropriate for countries such as India, Russia, Kazakhstan, China, etc. if they manage to resolve their ICT problems. (I cannot help but think that Ashotian has taken the idea from a Russian initiative without verifying its relevance to Armenian conditions).
We also need to remember that Armenia has the lowest rate of Internet penetration in the region and has highly inefficient postal services. Many villages still lack proper roads, running water supply, gas supply, etc. So how and why distance education can be considered a feasible policy option – at least for the next 5-10 years – remains a mystery.
As for the “burden over Yerevan”, Mr. Ashotian’s remarks are again ambiguous. Which burden has he in mind? Organized crime? Are low-income provincials involved in organized crimes? Urban traffic jams? Can they even afford buying cars? Frequent water and power cuts? Littering? Inflation? Political strife? Beating journalists? … Which of these problems, burdens, will disappear or subside the day low-income provincial students stop coming to the capital?
_______________________________________
For further reading:
Using ICT in Capacity Building for Poverty Reduction in Asia: Lessons Learned from the Microfinance Training of Trainers Course, S. Setboonsarng and J. Zhang, 2006, in PDF (407.8KB), please click here.
Open and Distance Learning for Agricultural Development and Rural Poverty Reduction, 2005, in PDF (983 KB), please click here.
>
Considered as the rising star of the pro-Russian wing of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, Mr. Ashotian provoked a controversy last September by taking position in favor of the construction of a chapel within the National Assembly premises. A clear violation of the principles of secularism and the impartiality of the State, the project is nevertheless under way. Mr. Ashotian later tried to justify his remarks by claiming that Armenian MPs would work much better if they had the opportunity to pray when they attended parliamentary sessions.
In October, he claimed that the main reason behind the recent rise in violent acts by the organized crime was the Armenian T.V. programming. According to Mr. Ashotian, Armenian channels air too many violent movies and serials. This was yet another strange assertion, a potentially antidemocratic one, and undoubtedly a contribution to theories of violence.
Discovering Distance Learning
“Distance learning in Armenia is underdeveloped and even missing. Whereas it has many advantages,” he said adding that distance education is very democratic since it bridges the gap between low-income and high-income students.
According to Mr. Ashotian’s calculations, distance education will cost universities much less and it will therefore enable them to lower their tuition fees. “Besides, students from provinces will not have to come to Yerevan. The distance learning will give them a chance to obtain education in their provinces.”
The lawmaker believes that the development of distance learning will not only make education accessible to young people from low-income provincial families but will also ease "the burden" over the city of Yerevan and enhance "the competitiveness of Armenian universities".
He also thinks that the development of distance learning in Armenia is hampered by the lack of adequate legislation; a problem that his colleague, the Minister of Education and Science, will address very shortly.
The New Blunder
To explain the lack of competitiveness of Armenian higher education, many factors have been signaled out including by the current authorities themselves (the President, the Prime Minister, etc.): Widespread corruption, insufficient government funding, an Education Ministry plagued by bureaucratic inertia and incompetence, programs with low relevance to the job market… but this is the first time that someone puts the blame on the low-income provincial students.
If I understand Mr. Ashotian well, Armenian universities spend their resources, time and energy on integrating and accommodating these students. Therefore, if they do not come to the capital, universities will be able to focus more, in which case they will become more competitive.
It is unclear, however, how these people distract Armenian universities so much as, due to lack of funding and the remnants of Soviet-era mentality, Armenian universities provide absolutely no services to students whether they are high-income urbanites or low-income provincials.
Moreover, the presence of provincials creates a mixed social setting which allows for social and cultural interactions, enriches students’ educational experiences and can contribute to social mobility. In democratic countries, universities – particularly public universities – go much further and actively seek students from diverse backgrounds – less affluent families or racial and ethnic minorities – by proposing affirmative action plans and need-based scholarship schemes.
Segregating students on class and location bases, reserving on-campus education for the wealthy and establishing distance education for the poor, is a regressive idea as it can only reinforce the existing social stratification and aggravate inequalities in the country.
And the worse is that the proposed segregation is being presented as a “democratic” plan that will favor provincial students as they will not “have” to come to Yerevan.
Controversies & Constraints
In the light of the experiences of different countries, it has not been clearly established yet whether distance learning improves access without sacrificing quality, or equity, and the role that ICTs play in delivering distance learning. These continue to be controversial topics that warrant further research and debate. It is unclear how Mr. Ashotian came up with such distinct opinions about the subject.
It is true that in countries such as Canada where distances are vast, the ICTs are well-developed, the Internet services are rather inexpensive, and education providers are better organized, distance education can be used to increase access. Such a policy mainly targets those who have traditionally been excluded from educational opportunities (e.g. youth in remote villages or improvished indigenous communities), in other words, “new” segments/groups of the population. This is why, it is claimed, distance education increases access.
Mr. Ashotian, however, proposes distance education as substitute to studying on-campus for those who until now have come to the capital to pursue their education. So improving access doesn’t seem to be his main objective.
Moreover, Armenia is a small country where distances cannot be considered as major barriers to higher education. Such a strategy may indeed be appropriate for countries such as India, Russia, Kazakhstan, China, etc. if they manage to resolve their ICT problems. (I cannot help but think that Ashotian has taken the idea from a Russian initiative without verifying its relevance to Armenian conditions).
We also need to remember that Armenia has the lowest rate of Internet penetration in the region and has highly inefficient postal services. Many villages still lack proper roads, running water supply, gas supply, etc. So how and why distance education can be considered a feasible policy option – at least for the next 5-10 years – remains a mystery.
As for the “burden over Yerevan”, Mr. Ashotian’s remarks are again ambiguous. Which burden has he in mind? Organized crime? Are low-income provincials involved in organized crimes? Urban traffic jams? Can they even afford buying cars? Frequent water and power cuts? Littering? Inflation? Political strife? Beating journalists? … Which of these problems, burdens, will disappear or subside the day low-income provincial students stop coming to the capital?
_______________________________________
For further reading:
Using ICT in Capacity Building for Poverty Reduction in Asia: Lessons Learned from the Microfinance Training of Trainers Course, S. Setboonsarng and J. Zhang, 2006, in PDF (407.8KB), please click here.
Open and Distance Learning for Agricultural Development and Rural Poverty Reduction, 2005, in PDF (983 KB), please click here.
>
