Models and meanings of Lifelong Learning: progress and barriers on the road to a Learning Society

INTRODUCTION

Models and meanings of Lifelong

Learning: progress and barriers on the

road to a Learning Society

Hans G. Schuetze and Catherine Casey

Lifelong Learning has risen prominently in recent years to the top of policy agendas

in many countries. An international academic literature has focused on many aspects

of educational systems of Lifelong Learning in theory and practice. The articles in

this volume expand and deepen the international and comparative debates by

viewing Lifelong Learning in its wider social, economic, civic and political

dimensions. These further efforts to analyse and understand Lifelong Learning are

offered from different disciplinary perspectives such as sociology of education, policy

studies, economics and management. This multifaceted approach avoids the usual

trap of putting Lifelong Learning into one or other box, such as adult or continuing

studies, or alternatively human resources development, that use Lifelong Learning as

a convenient policy label.

In this introduction we review the concept and meanings of Lifelong Learning and

examine the main contributory currents in their development. That discussion

provides the context in which the individual contributions, all of which have a

comparative perspective of their own, contribute to the wider international debate

and policy agenda. In a deliberately comparative context, differences of national or

regional culture and politics are highlighted and their importance in underlying

differences in the understandings of what the ‘learning society’, or the ‘knowledge-

based society’ means is explored. These differences affect the design of policies and

practices that seek effective and appropriate ways to achieve such learning societies.

While there are quite divergent views of these concepts, and a variety of policy

models designed to accomplish them, Lifelong Learning is seen by most authors and

policy analysts across these perspectives as the major route to a Learning Society.

1. Lifelong Learning—models and meanings

The concept of Lifelong Learning is based on three principles which break with the

traditional notion of ‘front-end’ formal education: Lifelong Learning is life-long,

‘life-wide’ and centred on ‘learning’ rather than on ‘education’ and educational

institutions.

Compare

Vol. 36, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 279–287

ISSN 0305-7925 (print)/ISSN 1469-3623 (online)/06/030279-9

# 2006 British Association for International and Comparative Education

DOI: 10.1080/03057920600872365

Lifelong learning implies that people should continue learning throughout their

lives, not just in informal ways as everybody does anyway (‘everyday learning’), but

also through organised learning in formal and non-formal settings1. Most analysts

take this to mean further or continuous learning after the phase of initial

(compulsory) education and therefore concentrate on post-compulsory or post-

secondary learning activities. However, the extent and quality of education during

the earlier, ‘formative’ years are considered of crucial importance for the ability and

motivation to engage in further leaning later in life (e.g. Hargreaves, 2002).

Therefore, a strategy of Lifelong Learning must include these formative years. While

this may not be obvious to the so-called ‘developed’ countries with ten years of

compulsory schooling and universal school attendance, elementary and secondary

schooling, literacy education for adults beyond school age may be the top priority

within an agenda of Lifelong Learning (see Alvarez’ paper on Mexico in this

volume).

The lifelong aspect of learning raises questions about the structure and

interrelationships between different sectors of the educational system. Since a

crucial prerequisite for lifelong education is a system that allows and promotes

smooth progression, which has multiple access and exit points, pathways and

transitions, with no programmes leading to dead ends, this would require some

fundamental reforms. Transitions do not only entail pathways between different

parts of the education system but also mechanisms for the passage from school to

work as well as, conversely, between work, and education and training.

The ‘life-wide’ component recognises the fact that organised learning occurs not

just in schools, colleges, universities and training institutions, but in a variety of

forms and in many different settings, many of them outside the formal educational

system. In a system of ‘life-wide’ learning the assessment and recognition of

knowledge learned outside the formal education system becomes a fundamental

necessity. Simple as this may appear, this proposition poses a major challenge to the

established hierarchy and traditional validation of different kinds of knowledge, that

is both the places where, and the mode in which, knowledge and know-how (i.e. the

applied form of knowledge) have been acquired. If all forms and types of know-how

are treated the same way no matter where and how they have been acquired,

mechanisms are needed for assessing and recognising skills and competencies

(OECD, 1996). These mechanisms must assess individual knowledge and abilities,

instead of formal qualifications, or the reputation and quality of accredited or

otherwise recognised formal educational institutions and their programmes. That

formal qualifications and actual abilities are not identical has been demonstrated

impressively by the recent International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), which was

designed to assess literacy levels of the adult population in various countries

(OECD, 2000). The surveys showed that discrepancies of certified and actual know-

how exist on both ends of the spectrum: while a relatively sizable percentage of

holders of high school or even advanced education qualifications have only minimal

levels of literacy, others with few formal qualifications have demonstrated literacy

competence at advanced levels. Under a Lifelong Learning aspect, both groups are

280 H. G. Schuetze and C. Casey

ill served by the present system of front end education: The former group relying on

qualifications acquired during their youth which are no longer adequate, the latter

with know-how learned in non-formal settings and modes without the formal

certification required for both admission to continuous studies in the formal system

and access to good jobs in the labour market. Therefore, assessing and recognising

knowledge that has not been learned in and certified by the formal education system

is a major conceptual as well as a practical problem.

The coordination of various programmes and institutions is another major

challenge. If learning is to become ‘life-wide,’ the organisation, regulation, financing

and promotion of learning activities do not fall exclusively into the domain of

ministers of education. They are also the responsibility of other government

departments such as culture, economic and social affairs, health and employment.

Such a learning system requires a certain degree of consistency regarding policies,

procedures and standards of the various agencies concerned, and also efficient

mechanisms of coordination. Moreover, coordination is not required solely between

different public agencies. With a great amount of non-formal adult education

occurring at the workplace, public and private responsibilities need to be defined and

coordinated to a greater extent than in the past. It follows that the issue of financing

must also be addressed differently within a perspective of Lifelong Learning and a

more diversified system of learning opportunities, places and providers.

The change of perspective from ‘education’ and ‘schooling’ to ‘learning’, entails

an even more radical departure from the present system than the former two. This

shift emphasises the individual process of learning and de-emphasises its social

dimension that is associated with education and schooling. It has a number of

consequences. The first of these is the recognition that there is little room for

prescribed and rigidly structured and sequenced curricula or programmes that apply

to every individual belonging to the same age group. With the exception of the early

years of formal learning, what is learned, and when, where and how it is learned, is

determined, in principle, by learners themselves—thus (parental) ‘choice’ has

become a key term associated with this emphasis on learning and learner-centred

programmes. Secondly, in a learner-based system the individuals have not only more

choice but also a greater personal agency for taking action and making meaningful

choices among the various options open to them. To make an informed choice can

be very difficult as information is often incomplete, misleading or outright wrong,

and may be—even if it is correct—too complex for an individual to correctly assess

the costs and benefits.

Crucial for exercising such choice is also the individual’s motivation and ability to

engage in learning beyond compulsory schooling. Motivation and capacity for

learning are factors that depend on a number of others, especially the individual’s

social-economic background, endowment with cultural and social capital and the

quality of his or her early childhood and of primary education experience. From a

lifelong angle, the capacity and motivation of further learning are also closely related

to the structure and processes of day-to-day situations, especially the workplace

(Rubenson & Schuetze, 2000).

Models and meanings of Lifelong Learning 281

2. Principal models

Due to its relative vagueness, the concept of Lifelong Learning can be compared to a

chameleon whose colours change according to its environment. A close look at

various policy reports reveals that there are different concepts or models using the

same name while differing in essential features.

Real or potential demand for and support of Lifelong Learning comes from a variety

of sources, but mainly three: (1) an increasing number of better educated adults who

require continuous learning opportunities, (2) a still large population of people who

lack minimal qualifications needed for qualified work and for participation in civic and

cultural life, and (3) the contemporary economy that operates in environments where

markets, technology, work organisation and skill requirements are frequently changing.

These changes are fueled by major technological developments in production and

exchange and by an increasing globalisation of markets. This economic imperative

seems dominant in today’s public discourse, with the call for Lifelong Learning being

expressed as often by employers and ministers of economic affairs as by educational

leaders and ministers of education.

The dominance of an economic rationale presents a stark contrast to the support

for earlier reform concepts such as the aforementioned strategies of ‘lifelong

education’ and ‘recurrent education’ that had a strong egalitarian thrust and

rationale for reforming the front-end, school-based education system. Whereas the

proposed reform recognised the need for workers to adjust their skills to changing

workplace requirements and the concomitant need for further training, the objective

of the proposed reform was primarily aimed at expanding access to general learning

opportunities to people from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds with little

or no previous formal education. Thus the model of Lifelong Learning, which

formed the base of the proposed reforms of the 1970s and early 1980s, was primarily

of an emancipatory nature. This model conceived of Lifelong Learning with a strong

emphasis on the advancement of a free, equitable, democratic society that would be

accomplished through emancipation of the underprivileged through the provision of

equal opportunity in education and in other life chances.

The present discourse on Lifelong Learning is marked by an erosion of this

commitment for emancipation and democratisation. In spite of some similarities

between the earlier and present concept, we can clearly see a shift from the

emancipatory–utopian or social justice concept to a market-oriented model, from an

understanding of opening up access to and participation in education as a means of

achieving a more egalitarian society to a strategy of adjusting workers’ skills to the

requirements of changing production processes and global market conditions.

In summary, we can distinguish four different basic models, all sailing under the

same banner of Lifelong Learning while charting different courses. They envision and

advocate different models of education and learning, of work, and ultimately of society:

N An emancipatory or social justice model which pushes the notion of equality of

opportunity and life chances through education in a democratic society (‘Lifelong

Learning for ALL’);


N A cultural model where Lifelong Learning is a process of each individual’s life

itself, aiming at the fulfillment of life and self-realisation (‘Lifelong Learning for

self fulfillment’);

N An ‘open society’ model in which Lifelong Learning is seen as an adequate

learning system for developed, multicultural and democratic countries (‘Lifelong

Learning for all who want, and are able, to participate’);

N A human capital model where Lifelong Learning connotes continuous work-

related training and skill development to meet the needs of the economy and

employers for a qualified, flexible and adaptable workforce (‘Lifelong Learning for

employment’).

With this variety in concept and objectives, Lifelong Learning has been described as

‘both a cliche and an empty theoretical label: Motherhood and apple pie, all things

to all people’ (Frost & Taylor, 2001, p. 51), as ‘a panacea for solving all kinds

of social ills and economic problems’ (Tuijnman & Bostrom, 2002, p. 105).

However, behind these definitional differences stand concrete and diverging political

agendas.

Of the four models, only the first promotes Lifelong Learning for all, an idealistic,

normative and somewhat utopian concept. In contrast, the others are more limited

in scope, and the fourth particularly is most specific about which types of learning

activities, specifically work and employment oriented, are included.

The cultural model does not advocate a social policy like the first nor does it

contain utilitarian elements: it is designed to promote learning for learning’s sake,

toward cultural ends and for leisure time (Okamoto, 1994). The ‘open society’

model is descriptive and typical of the situation in modern and open societies. It is

normative in the sense that there should be no institutional barriers to learning

opportunities for anyone who wants to learn. It embraces all developments that tend

to eliminate such barriers, especially the modern information and communication

technologies and education and learning at a distance, especially on-line learning. In

contrast to the first model, which would achieve its objectives by targeting specific

populations that face specific barriers of a dispositional and situational nature and

are therefore under-represented in formal and non-formal education and training

activities, the second model emphasises the role and responsibility of the individual.

The individual alone is responsible for informing and availing themselves of learning

opportunities.

The human capital model, now appearing to be most prominently advocated, sees

Lifelong Learning as a (continuing) training system appropriate for a knowledge-

based economy in which a well educated and adaptable (or ‘flexible’) workforce is

seen as a principal prerequisite for industrial innovativeness and international

competitiveness (Preston & Dyer, 2003). In contrast to the traditional view that saw

initial and continuing vocational or professional training largely as a responsibility of

industry, the human capital notion of Lifelong Learning regards individual workers

as primarily responsible for acquiring and updating their skills and qualifications in

order to enhance their employability and career chances.


As with all models or ideal types, none of these exists in its pure form in any country,

nor are any of them pursued as such. Rather there are hybrid forms in various

countries with different emphases on one or several of these principal directions that

are grafted on to existing systems of education and training, sometimes with little real

change. Moreover, the official policy discourse and rationale often change over time,

and countries that in the 1970s aspired to becoming an inclusive ‘Learning Society’

such as New Zealand have embraced a human capital oriented strategy in the 1990s

(see the article by Catherine Casey, in this volume). Thus, for assessing country

strategies towards Lifelong Learning, it might be more appropriate to look at different,

broader types of societal models—models that distinguish countries’ or groups of

countries’ political culture and their understanding of the respective roles of the

(welfare) state and of markets (see below).

3. The importance of policy, structures and culture

The current Special Issue has its origin in a panel at the World Congress of the

Comparative Education Societies, held in October 2004 in Havana, Cuba. The

panel members, the authors of this Issue, had been asked to describe and analyse

public Lifelong Learning policies and their implementation in their respective

countries and larger geographical regions, and to link them to the models that have

been distinguished above. Such an analysis included the identification of the

contextual factors, forces and influences that had led to their adoption and

implementation. The picture that emerges from their analysis shows a variety of

forms in which the concept is used in the public discourse and implemented. These

differences are due to different regional and country patterns of education and

training, changing policy objectives and priorities, the role of the state, as well as the

influence of culture.

In his chapter addressing international concepts and agendas of Lifelong

Learning, Hans Schuetze concentrates on the role and agenda of international

organisations that originally have been the principal proponents of Lifelong Learning

and which continue to play an important, even if indirect role, in convincing their

member countries to gradually implement it. Schuetze argues that in spite of some

similarities between earlier and present concepts, there is a clear shift from the

emancipatory-utopian or social justice concept to a market-oriented model, whose

primary objective is make continuous training and learning on the part of workers a

requirement of employability. While the author shows that some international

organisations make Lifelong Learning a central instrument of influencing member

countries to change their educational policies and structures to conform to the

Lifelong Learning model they advocate, he also argues that concept and policies are

not developed in isolation by international organisations and pushed onto national

governments for implementation, but rather the result of international debates and

discourses that are initiated and shaped by national governments, frequently using

the international agenda for reinforcing and legitimising their own national reform

agendas.


Andy Green reviews the evidence for the emergence of distinctive regional models

of Lifelong Learning and the Knowledge Economy/Society within Europe. He also

addresses the overarching question of whether we can identify different regional

models of Lifelong Learning, how far these depend on certain regional socio-

economic contexts, and whether they are constitutive of the different models of the

Learning Economy/Society which have been posited in the literature. He presents

evidence for a threefold typology of knowledge societies. Besides the neo-liberal and

the social market models that have been distinguished in the literature, he argues

that there is a third, Nordic model which he believes combines better than the other

two economic competitiveness and social cohesion by emphasising educational

equality and hence more equal distribution of life chances.

Kjell Rubenson’s analysis probes further into the Nordic model, which has been of

considerable interest for the success of the four Nordic countries in various

international comparative analyses, especially the International Adult Lifelong

Survey (OECD, 2000) and Programme for International Student Assessment. He

contends that, in spite of claims that the various systems are converging, models of

political economies and welfare state regimes exist which affect the direction and

outcome of education policies. He explains that the Nordic model is the antithesis of

the current policy pursued in the Anglo-Saxon countries and by international

organisations such as the OECD, which advocate the reduction of public financing

for education and the enhancement of private investments in education and training.

Complementing Green’s and Rubenson’s respective focus on welfare state

regimes, structures and cultures as the principal factors in countries’ understanding

and implementation of Lifelong Learning, three other papers concentrate on

particular countries or regions, describing and analysing their main approaches and

developments over time with regard to Lifelong Learning.

In her comparative analysis of New Zealand and Australian developments,

Catherine Casey discusses the current policy consensus that emphasises the

relationships between economic development and competitive advantage and an

educated, continuously learning citizenry. Casey shows that there is much official

governmental attention in both these countries to the development of a ‘knowledge

economy’ and ‘knowledge society’ and the development of education and training

policies toward that end. Current interests in Lifelong Learning and retraining are

somewhat dominated by economic and political imperatives seeking competitive

economic advantage through appropriately learning and skills-acquiring workers,

but these discourses and imperatives are by no means the only ones in Australia and

New Zealand. Older and alternative models of Lifelong Learning for democratic and

humanistic personal and social development remain active and influential. Casey

finds that conflict and contestation among the current models and aspirations for

learning societies and knowledge economies present prospects for a potentially

generative development of further education across the life course, and across a

broader population, in democratic societies.

Another paper, jointly authored by Tom Healy and Maria Slowey, focuses on the

‘Celtic Tiger’ model and experience. The authors show that the story of the


spectacular economic rise of (the Republic of) Ireland, which is seen as exemplary by

most economic analysts, has a definite dark side: inequality. Thus, poverty, social

exclusion, poor health and low levels of educational attainment of part of the adult

population are a problem. All of these, but especially the educational inequalities are

directly correlated with low participation rates in Lifelong Learning. The authors

argue that educational inequalities and social exclusion are only a problem on moral

grounds but also that overcoming these inequalities is an important prerequisite for

sustained economic development.

The last paper, authored by German Alvarez, concentrates on a less developed

country and region, Mexico and the major Latin America countries respectively

where Lifelong Learning policies and prospects are situated in a very different policy

and cultural context. For Mexico, a rapidly developing country, the challenge is

twofold: first the problem of translating government policy and public discourse into

action. In this report Mexico experiences similar problems to many other countries,

namely the difficult combination of policies made by the various actors and at

different levels of government. The second challenge is equally formidable: to close

the enormous gap between the educated population and the educational and the

economically disadvantaged. As in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon model the

problem of social exclusion of part of the population cannot be addressed without

special attention to the needs of the underprivileged. As this disadvantaged group

accounts for almost half of the population in Mexico, it is clear that the catch-up race

with other countries, especially the two major trading partners of the North America

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the USA and Canada, presents many hurdles.

Alvarez shows that especially under these conditions, a forceful strategy of Lifelong

Learning is required, but he also shows the many obstacles, which make Lifelong

Learning also extremely difficult to implement.

4. Lifelong Learning—revolutionary reform concept or fad?

Lifelong Learning as a concept for re-thinking and re-modeling established systems

of education and non-formal learning has been around for more than a generation

now. Differing from more ephemeral ideas of a grand re-design that we have seen

before, it has proven to be a rather resilient and increasingly influential concept

primarily for two reasons: firstly, it has adapted to a new political, socio-economic

and cultural environment, in which it can play an important role as a ‘master

concept’ for educational and social reform. Secondly because industry, and by

extension Ministers of industry, economic affairs and finance are seeing it as a useful

instrument for pursuing objectives of generating a well-trained, flexible and

adaptable workforce that is seen of increasing importance for competing successfully

in global markets.

As we have pointed out above, and several contributions in this issue show, there

are different and competing models under the flag of Lifelong Learning, which carry

different interests, political cultures and notions of the kind of society that people

aspire to live in. As with all labels there is a variable correspondence with the true


content of the packet. It is therefore of crucial importance to look closely at the

content rather than the label. We are convinced the contributions of this Issue will

help the reader in doing that.

Note

1. ‘Formal’ settings comprise the education system, i.e. schools, colleges, universities whereas

‘non-formal’ settings are other places outside the formal education sector where organised

learning takes place (e.g. the workplace, museums, community centres, trade unions, sports

clubs). By contrast, ‘informal’ learning is learning that takes place anywhere, yet in an

unplanned, unorganised and mostly incidental manner. Although it is also a major form of

learning, this informal ‘everyday leaning’ is not included here as it is impossible to draw clear

boundaries between what can be considered ‘learning’ and the range of other behavioural and

experiential activities in which people engage (Tuijnman & Bostrom, 2002).

References

Frost, N. & Taylor, R. (2001) Pattern of change in the university: The impact of ‘Lifelong

Learning’ and the ‘World of Work’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 33(1), 49–59.

Hargreaves, D. H. (2002) Effective schooling for lifelong learning, in: D. Istance, H. G. Schuetze

& T. Schuller (Eds), International perspectives of lifelong learning—From recurrent education to

the knowledge society (Buckingham, Open University Press), 49–62.

Istance, D., Schuetze, H. G. & Schuller, T. (Eds) (2002) International perspectives of lifelong learning

(Buckingham, Open University Press).

Okamoto, K. (1994) Lifelong learning movement in Japan—Strategies, practices and challenges

(Tokyo, Sun Printing Ltd).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development & Statistics Canada (2000) Literacy in

the information age: final report of the International Adult Literacy Survey (Paris, OECD).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1996) Lifelong learning for all—meeting

of the Education Committee at ministerial level (Paris, OECD).

Preston, R. & Dyer, C. (2003) Human capital, social capital and lifelong learning: an editorial

introduction, Compare, 33(4), 429–436.

Rubenson, K. & Schuetze, H. G. (2000) Lifelong learning for the knowledge society: demand,

supply, and policy dilemmas, in: K. Rubenson & H. G. Schuetze (Eds) Transition to the

knowledge society: policies and strategies for individual participation and learning (Vancouver,

UBC Institute for European Studies), 355–376.

Tuijnman, A. & Bostrom, A. K. (2002) Changing notions of lifelong education and lifelong

learning, International Review of Education, 48(1/2), 93–110.


Documents

Models and meanings of Lifelong Learning: progress and barriers on the road to a Learning Society