More, Different and Better

Written by Tom Schuller, who directed the NIACE Inquiry into Lifelong Learning. Tom was formerly head of the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, and Professor of Lifelong Learning at Birkbeck, University of London.  He is writing The Paula Principle on why women work below their level of competence.

I see NIACE’s conference in Cardiff at the end of this week as a real opportunity to take stock and set ourselves some challenges for the future. Arguably as a community of lifelong learning proselytisers we have relied a little too much on the positive rhetoric which surrounds lifelong learning. I’m not for one instant denigrating the work done and the reports of its success in improving learners’ confidence, sense of self and material prospects. But one important next step is to look more systematically and rigorously at what works well and what works less well;  to open ourselves up to a more varied range of evaluations; and to face up to the challenges which a changing demographic and technological context brings us.

So, at the conference I’ll be looking for conversations which reflect an awareness of the need for rigorous evaluation.

I’d link this to the growing attention being paid in the European context to the concept of learning cities/regions. There’s a week later this year, in October, where this will be the theme for Europe. The idea of learning cities has been something of a slow burner since it was first developed in the OECD back in the 1980s, but it is now spreading. China is certainly taking it seriously, with some 80 cities, many of them very large indeed, being designated as learning cities. This will be a great opportunity to compare how the different regions are monitoring the impact of the label.

Then I’d like to see us exchanging views on what is going on in the way of lifelong learning strategies. Recently I was in Hamburg at UNESCO’s Institute for Lifelong Learning, for a meeting of ASEM, the hub which brings together Asia and Europe. The hub has several networks and I belong to the one which focuses on strategies for lifelong learning. We’re still struggling to define what we mean by a strategic approach. I’d naturally like to see use made of the 2009 NIACE Inquiry’s work, which aimed explicitly at developing a strategic framework; there is ideal material for a comparative approach, looking at how far different countries can be said to have an actual strategy for lifelong learning.

Finally, one of the conference’s aims is to look at increasing participation by less well qualified adults. I have a particular take on this, since I’m just finishing a book on how and why women work below their level of competence – what I call the Paula Principle. This gender dimension has two aspects relevant here. First, this work has led me to believe that we have as a real priority the position of part-timers – men and women. We should no longer think of part-timers as marginal members of the labour force, without career aspirations. Many of them are well qualified, and their skill levels are going up. But the opportunities for putting these skills to use are limited.

The other aspect is to do with how we approach the increasing educational disparity between women and men. Women have always tended to take part more in general adult learning. Now they do so also in training and from a base of higher initial qualifications. It’s a Europe-wide trend, so there should be plenty of scope for exchanging views. This is one demographic which needs some attention – the implications are not straightforward!