Futures 33 (2001) 531–540www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Family learning in the workplace: nurturinglifelong learning

Patricia Bryans*

Centre for Professional Development, University of Durham, Pelaw House, Durham DH1 1TA, UK

Abstract

Lifelong learning must become a reality for all employees if we are to create and sustainorganizations which can survive in the knowledge economy of the future. But how do weengage those who never access training and development opportunities at work? In this articleit is argued that these people may be attracted back to learning by offering them opportunitiesat work to learn with their families.

This different method of facilitating lifelong learning is examined here. The benefits tobusiness and the wider community of encouraging families to learn together at work areexplored. It is concluded that the addition of family learning in organisations to our currentrange of training and development activities can engage a new constituency in learning at workand can model the importance of lifelong learning to a new generation of future employees.2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Across the UK and throughout Europe political parties have been emphasising theimportance of lifelong learning to the future health and success of not only theeconomy but also society. A new millennium has prompted reflection at the highestlevels on the future shape of our lives, both at work and at home. Women will soonform a majority of the UK workforce [1] and the impact of this on the family, whichremains the key unit of society, is causing repercussions throughout government,society and organisations. When learning is so crucial to our futures, encouragingfamilies to learn together can aid social cohesion and improve relationships, and canalso serve to model the importance of lifelong learning to our children. When suchfamily learning is based in our workplaces it can also lead to a greater understanding

* Tel.: +44-191-3747863.E-mail address:patricia.bryans@durham.ac.uk (P. Bryans).

0016-3287/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.PII: S0016 -3287(00 )00096-3

532 P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

of organisational life and may even encourage the further development of peopleat work.

This article explores the benefits which can result from opening up the learningresources of organisations to the families of employees. Encouraging families tolearn together is an approach which has had a good deal of success, for example inimproving the literacy levels of both parents and children [2]. However, to date,these family learning initiatives have been largely based in schools and as such mayexclude working parents. Basing family learning activities in workplaces may helpto overcome this problem.

Using work organisations as a setting for family learning activities is a differentapproach to facilitating lifelong learning. Its potential and possibilities are examinedhere. The benefits to business and the wider community of encouraging families tolearn together at work are explored in this article. It is concluded that the additionof family learning in organisations to our current range of training and developmentactivities can engage a new constituency in learning at work and can model theimportance of lifelong learning to a new generation of future employees.

1. The lifelong learning context

The need for lifelong learning has become widely accepted and is a major partof UK government policy. The pace of change and technological development inmodern life necessitates the development of a culture of learning throughout life—not just at school. Claims are widespread that the western world is moving rapidlytowards a knowledge economy: an economy in which the development and appli-cation of knowledge replaces capital, raw materials and labour as the means of pro-duction [3]. The most forward-looking organisations realise that their survival andsuccess depend to a significant extent on the ability of their employees to continueto learn and to share what they have learned with others.

The challenge to modern society (and to its organisations) is how to make lifelonglearning a practical reality. Education, training and development continue to benefitthose who arealreadywell educated and those who are in employment. In the LabourForce Survey of 1993–4 over 31% of employees with degrees received training intwo or more areas. The comparable figure for employed non-graduates was only5.3%. The European Commission’s White Paper [4:1] claims: “As a general rulethere is a direct relationship between level of education and unemployment rate: thehigher the former the lower the latter.”

One problem facing society as a whole is the issue of how those who are excluded(or who exclude themselves through disaffection) can be engaged in learning. Organ-isations are no exception to this problem. The Fryer Report [5] summarised thesituation: “Those who have fewer skills and are at the lower end of the hierarchiesof authority, autonomy and pay at work also enjoy fewer opportunities for learningthrough work.” Forward-looking work organisations in all sectors realise the impor-tance of developing learning cultures to ensure that they keep pace with socio-econ-omic change. Embedding learning throughout the organisation means going beyond

533P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

traditional approaches to training and development which, like education in general,tend to benefit those already well educated. Despite the contrary pressures of themarket economy, some organisations are prepared to explore alternative approachesto promote lifelong learning and many have already had some success.

The calls for new thinking on these issues are growing and gaining more main-stream support. Gary Hamel [6:50], writing on business strategy, claims: “The goalis to help organisations create the biggest possible legacy for the greatest numberof people. For better or for worse, individuals today devote more energy to theirwork than they do to their families, their communities or the spiritual things in theirlives. If that is the most consuming part of people’s lives, then I think it is incumbenton us to study the world of business and do our best to ensure that the investmentof emotional equity yields a substantial return for those people.”

A number of companies are paying attention to these issues by offering life-workbalance programmes to help staff explore them for themselves. But the short-term,profit-led agenda which drives business has not seen the benefit of investing in familylearning. Sennett [7] describes this as symptomatic of an economy based on theprinciple of “no long term”. He advocates attempts to challenge it: we “must askwhat value is the corporation to the community, how does it serve civic interestsrather than just its own ledger of profit and loss? Imposing external standards ofbehaviour often begets internal reform.. . . external standards of responsible behav-iour may hold up to the corporation a picture of ‘what you should be like, here,where you are, right now’.”

Welcoming families into organisations (be they factories, offices or hospitals) tomake use of training rooms and resources, to learn together, can offer a means oftackling all these issues. Organisations can become more family friendly, helpingtheir employees who are working parents to balance their lives, young people canbe encouraged to realise that learning must happen throughout life and society canbenefit from a better synergy between organisations, parents and children.

2. Linking work, schools and society

If lifelong learning is to become embedded, changes must also take place inschools. The lifelong learning agenda has huge implications for school-based learning(for example, in emphasising learning how to learn), yet despite the huge changeswhich have taken place in society, the “basic ways in which we deliver educationhave barely changed” [8]. Bentley argues that we should focus on the connectionsbetween school and society, relating education more closely to the challenges ofadulthood [8]. One of the major challenges of adulthood is to find and keep a job,yet we continue to separate children from the workplace. Typically, work experienceinitiatives do not go far enough. We allow them to enter for just one week of workexperience and then expect them when they become employed to be able to adjustquickly and uncritically to what is essentially an unknown and perhaps alien environ-ment. We are trying to encourage parents into schools—why are we not encouragingchildren into organisations?

534 P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

Bentley [8] claims there are two crucial tests for an education system; how wellchildren can apply what they have learned outside the bounds of formal educationalexperience and how well they are prepared to continue learning and solving problemsthroughout the rest of their lives. In order to pass the tests, he argues, Britain’seducation system must change; learning must be broader and deeper. “This learningwill not take place only inside schools and colleges, but in communities, workplacesand families.” One example of facilitating learning in communities is the recent,growing awareness of the need to open up the facilities available in schools to par-ents, adults and community groups as learning resources for the local area, makingbetter and fuller use of a valuable resource.

The family is viewed as particularly important by Bentley [8] who calls it “thecrucible of almost all effective learning in any society” and refers to a wealth ofresearch which states, “parenting and family environment are the most significantfactors affecting educational performance”. These ideas have been put into practicein the UK, through initiatives developed by the Basic Skills Agency. It has promotedthe development of family learning initiatives in schools which have been evaluatedas successful in raising literacy levels among children and parents. Less tangiblebenefits, such as building cultures of lifelong learning and improving family com-munication and relationships, are not so easy to prove, requiring different methodsof evaluation and a longitudinal approach. The Fryer Report [5] commended suchfamily learning initiatives stating that “family learning can provide unique opport-unities to create inter-generational learning, reflecting all the major changes in rolesand identities, which affect people as their lives develop.” The evaluation by theNational Foundation for Education Research (NFER) [2] of a three-year Family Lit-eracy programme, which involved parents with low literacy levels and childrenbetween the ages of three and six in four pilot areas, found dramatic and sustainedimprovements and concluded that “family literacy works”.

However, schools are not the only context for learning and for some adults theyare not an appropriate setting for family learning. Some families live in the samearea for many years; visiting their children’s schools also means returning to thescene of their own schooldays and, therefore, for many, to the site of their ownfailure. Sometimes the teachers are the same people who taught them. In commentingupon the family learning initiatives based at the Ford Motor Company, the co-ordin-ator, Sue Southwood, mentioned that many parents felt uncomfortable when dealingwith their children’s school. The fault did not seem to lie with any particular school;their participating families are drawn from a wide area with all the children attendingdifferent schools. As a result, Ford have concluded that it is perhaps more due toparents’ memories of their own school lives. Adding workplace-based family learn-ing to our provision may help these parents.

3. Family learning in organisations

Offering family learning in organisations may also be helpful for working parentsin general who are largely excluded from initiatives involving family learning in

535P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

schools because of the demands of the working week. Fathers in particular are sig-nificantly less involved. (The only criticism made by the NFER of the school-basedfamily learning initiative they evaluated was that so few fathers were involved.) Inanother UK initiative, the Lightbowne family learning project, only one father hasbeen actively involved since 1995 out of 79 participants [9]. This may reflect ageneral difficulty of involving men in family-based projects [10]. The Basic SkillsAgency has been promoting workplace-based family learning initiatives as a way ofinvolving more fathers (this should also attract working mothers). This idea is nota substitute for school-based family learning, but an addition which may attract anew clientele to learning.

It is possible that for some families the workplace could be a more suitable settingfor family learning activities. Many adults do not have happy memories of their ownschooldays and for them the school as a location for family learning may not be anattractive setting. Some parents may be uncomfortable admitting their own learningdifficulties in front of their child’s teachers, but might be more confident on familiarterritory in their workplace. The Fryer Report [5] promotes the concept of “locallearning centres”. Experience from a number of examples outlined here indicatesthat a major local employer could fulfil such a function, with potential benefits tobe gained by all the participating parties: employers, families, employees, parentsand children. Family learning in organisations can take a number of forms; fromsimply allowing children to use open-learning facilities and resources alongside theirparents, to structured taught sessions for families, to more informal family-led anddelivered sessions on subjects of interest.

Although organisation-based family learning is not common in UK, the authorwas able to identify a number of organisations currently putting family learning intopractice in its various forms mentioned above and their experiences are discussedhere. In addition, several training and development managers in other organisationscontacted by the author commented that they were interested in the possibility ofadding family learning to a range of activities they are involved in to develop moreinclusive approaches to training and development.

3.1. Case one

Lite-On, part of a Taiwanese group, employs 220 people in an ex-mining area ofa rural county in the north-east of England. The company has a strong local repu-tation for its commitment to learning and is currently spending some 5% of its turn-over on training and development. The company is keen to develop and expand itsactivities and market the idea ofLite-On Learning. Clear links are made betweenlearning and the achievement of business objectives. Every employee is currentlyengaged in learning leading to some form of qualification; they even aim to ensurethat employees on their six-month probation/induction period gain NVQ level 2. Thefocus on learning is championed at the very top of the organisation by the personalcommitment of its Chief Executive. Lite-On provides a suite of computers in anopen-learning resource room for staff to use outside of working hours. This facilityis also available to the families of employees. There are no specific taught or tutor-

536 P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

led family learning sessions, but children can work on school projects while parentswork on their own work-related training packages. Training staff see potential forfurther development of this and other learning initiatives.

The company is conscious of skills shortages and of the poor image which engin-eering and manufacturing careers hold for many young people. It works closely withone of the major local high schools, where the children actually produce one of theirproducts, and has produced a CD-ROM on the reality of engineering and manufactur-ing work which is aimed at schools. It is clearly in the company’s interest to ensurethat the local youngsters are appropriately equipped to join the company on leavingschool but there is also talk of “putting something back”. The wider role the businesscan fulfil in the local community is acknowledged.

3.2. Case two

A similar reason for involvement in family learning is given by the Ford MotorCompany, a car manufacturer which employs 9000 people and is the largest manufac-turing base in the south-east of England. The Ford Motor Company has a very suc-cessful and innovative approach to family learning [11]. In 1992 it established itsOff Line Basic Skills Unitas a joint initiative between Ford, the trade unions andALBSU (the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit). It has opened its learning facili-ties to the families of its employees through a number of initiatives over the lasteight years. Its provision includes Family Learning in Literacy, Numeracy and Infor-mation Technology.

Typically, the Family Learning sessions follow a pattern of adults and childrenlearning separately in the first half of the session and learning together in the secondhalf. Generally the sessions are co-facilitated by a primary school teacher and anadult basic skills tutor, as a way of ensuring that both adults and children are sup-ported in their learning. They have, and do use, learning resources based around themotor car and the motor industry, but these are not central to the provision.

Family Literacy projects have proved to be the most difficult to recruit but a widerange of informal approaches is followed in an attempt to attract parents/employees.To celebrate the National Year of Reading in 1999, a library of children’s bookswas established in the canteen and made available for staff to access in their lunchbreaks. It providedOff Line staff with the opportunity to chat informally to parentsabout reading with children and gave them the chance to invite them to the familyliteracy sessions.

The Family Numeracy projects, like the other family learning initiatives, are basedin the Body Plant where the workforce is 99% male. Sue Southwood of Ford attri-butes the success of the programme to the fact that it takes place in an environmentwhere the men feel comfortable, have esteem and are valued and that the sessionsare arranged to suit their jobs, including difficult shift patterns and overtime. Eachsession is stand alone and there is no pressure to maintain full attendance. Clearlymost of these men could not and probably would not attend such sessions based intheir children’s schools, where some report that they feel out of place and uncomfort-

537P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

able. However, the children (seven to eleven year olds) find the location excitingand actively encourage their parents to continue attending.

The Technology Together project runs over ten weeks and nine families have theopportunity to engage in activities such as using the Internet, creating their ownheaded paper and recording their family tree. A particularly successful projectcentred on shared memories, which involved the use of technology such as scannersand digital cameras.

To those with experience of family learning, these activities may not seem newor different. That may be so. The point, however, is that they are taking place in adifferent environment which might of itself stimulate different attitudes andapproaches to learning in all the participants, who would (in the experience of Ford)be very unlikely to participate at all should the learning be offered elsewhere. Theyare also crucial to building new forms of family and work relationships and suchsocial relationships are central to learning, for as Coffield [12] argues, “learning islocated in social participation as well as in the heads of individuals”.

Sue Southwood links Ford’s involvement in family learning to the company’s“Corporate Citizenship” objective whereby Ford looks for ways to contribute to thelocal community, “putting something back into the locality”. Family learning can bea way of breaking a cycle of exclusion from learning, which actually fills the gap—we do not have to wait for the next generation to be different, this one can be, too.

3.3. Case three

A national company manufacturing cardboard packaging has a factory in the north-east of England. Its Training and Development manager is concerned about its needto up-skill the workforce to be able to cope with new computerised manufacturingmethods which will be introduced over the next five years. The company has a strongcommitment to its existing employees and is conscious of the important role it playsas a major employer in its rural location. As a result, there is also concern aboutthe need to find new ways to ensure that every employee is willing and able toengage in learning and development activities, coupled with a desire to ensure thatthe next generation of future employees is suitably skilled and has appropriate atti-tudes towards learning. Closer partnerships with local schools would help with thelatter, but family learning activities in literacy, numeracy and information technologywould be an inclusive approach to all these issues facing the company, and thetraining and development staff are interested in taking the idea further.

3.4. Case four

In many ways Mars Confectionery is a similar organisation to Ford in that it isa large manufacturing employer which operates a shift-work pattern. It is a companywhich is endeavouring to become more family friendly and which is conscious ofits role in the community and of trying to “give something back”. Previously, at therequest of participants, the company has made weekend training courses (particularlya personal effectiveness course) available to the partners of its employees. However,

538 P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

it has not been involved in family learning initiatives, though it was recognised thatthere was huge potential in such an approach for improving literacy and numeracyamong its employees. The company has experienced employees going to greatlengths to cover up such problems and is concerned to help. But, as most BasicSkills tutors can confirm, such individuals are often highly skilled at disguising theirproblems and many are reluctant to seek help.

In summary, these examples show that the major difficulties with family learninginitiatives based in organisations appear to be practical matters, such as arrangingappropriate insurance. This can be solved easily, but how to fund the cost of theschemes may be more problematic. Jim Pateman of the Basic Skills Agency, whohelped Ford to set up its family learning schemes, stresses the importance of appro-priate marketing of the initiatives. So far, most of the parents in family literacyprogrammes are new to basic skills sessions, so it appears a new group of learnersis being reached. Further research is needed to discover which people join organis-ation-based family learning and whether they then feel encouraged to progress toother training and development at work or outside the workplace.

4. The benefits for organisations, families and communities

The possible benefits of encouraging organisations to offer family learning activi-ties are immediately recognisable.

4.1. For organisations

If family learning initiatives do attract those not previously accessing training anddevelopment, the level of learning in organisations could be improved dramatically.Further research could then establish whether the participants progress to more main-stream training and development opportunities, and whether their inclusion is sus-tained. We could investigate to establish whether there is any impact on morale, jobsatisfaction, job performance or labour turnover.

Raising the confidence and ability of employees with basic skills such as numer-acy, literacy and information technology is a key starting point to aid further develop-ment of individuals and to tackle a huge problem in the UK. In “Improving literacyand numeracy—a fresh start” [13] it is estimated that 7 million adults show functionalilliteracy, being unable to use the alphabetical index to the Yellow Pages to locatethe page reference for plumbers. One in four adults cannot calculate the change theyshould get out of £2 when they buy three items and one in three cannot calculatethe area of a room of given measurements, even with the aid of a calculator. Overall,it is estimated that 23% of British adults have low ability in literacy and numeracy.

The report recommends that employers play a key role promoting basic skills intheir employees, both by demanding more skill and by helping them acquire it. Itis recognised that time for study is an issue and government funding for day releaseis recommended. After-school family learning groups at workplaces can help to solvebasic skills problems in parents and children (existing and potential future

539P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

employees), as well as easing the child-care problems of employees. This may wellengage more working women in training by helping to balance work and familycommitments. A family-friendly approach to learning may in turn lead to more fam-ily-friendly policies across an organisation and boost its status and image.

As a result, both internal and external relationships may be changed. The organis-ation could become less insular and build links with schools and the communityin general.

The social agenda which many organisations already have (through, for example,Family Fun Days) could be extended into a learning agenda (Family LearningDays)—learning can be fun, too. There is always the possibility that children mayinfluence the organisation. We may worry that the organisation will exert an influenceon children but it can also work the other way round!

4.2. For families

Opening up the learning resources of organisations to families can give access tofacilities and resources they might be otherwise unable to afford. It may help tofoster improved relationships between family members which aid social cohesion—“the family that learns together . . .” The experience of Ford suggests that it willhelp to engage men in family activities. Opening the workplace to children may helpto introduce young people to the realities of the work environment, including therequirement for continuous learning and development. Parents can act as role modelsof lifelong learning to their children. The workplace may prove an exciting newlocation for learning which may engage disaffected children who dislike school-based learning. Family learning at work may give those parents who had “unsuccess-ful” school-based learning experiences a second chance, in an alternative context, tolearn and become confident about helping their children to learn. This may help tobreak a cycle of underachievement or what the Kennedy Report [14] called “theprospect of breaking out of a cycle of economic and social exclusion”.

4.3. For communities

Opening up local organisations as a site for learning makes an additional learningresource available to the community. Building the capacity of the community tomatch the requirements of local employers is mutually beneficial. It develops inemployers and in young people a long-term commitment to the locality.

All the above benefits apply to communities, not just to families and organisations.Regeneration and communities which can stay healthy into the future depend on theability of people in the locality to learn their way out of their problems and developtheir potential. Richer relationships can lead to huge potential for cross-fertilisationof thinking between generations and between school and work.

540 P. Bryans / Futures 33 (2001) 531–540

5. Conclusion

Family learning works; training and development in organisations works; can webring the two together and make family learning in organisations work? Clearly,family learning in organisations is notthe answer to all learning needs but it canhelp to make the idea of lifelong learning a practical reality. It can widen choiceand encourage genuine participation—inclusive learning. It allows constructive dia-logue about learning experiences and may stimulate changes in schools and organis-ations; school does not equal learning. Adding family learning in organisations toour range of provision can encourage a different group of learners into workplacelearning. It can help to strengthen relationships or rebuild families by encouragingcommunication and joint activity. It can regenerate communities by building theircapacity to generate and sustain employment. It can humanise organisations by build-ing their links with their locality and by helping them to recognise that theiremployees are people, often parents with responsibilities.

References

[1] Wilkinson H, Howard M. Tomorrow’s women. Demos, 1997.[2] NFER. Family literacy works: the NFER evaluation. London: The Basic Skills Agency, 1996.[3] Reich R. The work of nations. London: Simon and Schuster, 1991.[4] European Commission. Teaching and learning: towards the learning society. Luxembourg: Office

for Official Publications, 1995.[5] Fryer RH. Learning for the 21st century. First report of the National Advisory Group for Continuing

Education and Lifelong Learning. HMSO, 1991.[6] Arkin A. Profile of Gary Hamel. People Management 1998;October 29.[7] Sennett R. The corrosion of character. New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1998.[8] Bentley T. Learning beyond the classroom. London: Routledge, 1998.[9] Chew C, Platten J. Upstairs—downstairs. Adults Learning 1998;10(2).

[10] Stone C. Focus on families—family centres in action. Macmillan, 1994.[11] Pringle D. Togetherness is first class. Ford News 1997;February 9:3.[12] Coffield F. Breaking the consensus: lifelong learning as social control. Inaugural lecture, University

of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, February 2, 1999.[13] Improving literacy and numeracy—a fresh start. HMSO, 1998.[14] Kennedy H. FE for the next millennium. HMSO, 1998.