Da dannelsen gik ud - Interfolk

II: Uddannelsespolitiske tendenser i EU og Norden
Efter denne mere principielle og konstitutive kritik af læringssynet i Memorandummets indledende afsnit
fremhæves det, at der er tale om en ubalance i det dobbelte mål om beskæftigelsesegnethed og aktivt borgerskab.
“The necessary basic skills set out in the Memorandum have a bias towards working life at the cost of
active citizenship and opportunities for creating and living in heterogeneous societies. 72
Afsnit 2.4: Views on knowledge and skills, educational ideals and learning rummer den mest vidtgående kritik
af Memorandummets instrumentelle syn på uddannelse. Kritikkens præcision og aktualitet er ikke mindre
end for 7 år siden.
“Many object to the omission of a more humanistic educational ideal in the Commission’s Memorandum.
Education is regarded as an instrument for achieving employment, nothing more. (..) In Sweden
the individual humanistic educational ideal is often given emphasis. One question put is what would
be the consequences of a transition from a more humanistic educational ideal to a paradigm that puts
more emphasis on economic growth and the labour market. Such a transition can seriously limit views
on learning and education. The formulation in the Memorandum indicates an instrumental view and
an economic growth perspective which would seem to be alien to prevailing views of knowledge, skills
and learning. People should be ”employable”, that is in some sense adapted to the labour market. Undoubtedly
this is important, but if the perspective is limited to this, learning can hardly be said to be
taking place on the individual’s conditions.” 73
Det svenske svar finder det vitalt, at individuelle behov, også dem, som ikke har relation til den samfundsmæssige
nytte, bliver taget alvorligt.
”Education and knowledge have a value in themselves, both for society, as well as the individual. We
ought to emphasise that personal development is in itself a sufficient ”end” for education and competence
development”.(..) The views of knowledge, skills and education are relevant also for issues concerning
evaluation and validation. Since lifelong learning should also cover learning in a wider sense,
validation instruments and measuring methods developed to document learning should not lead to an
exclusively narrow view expressed by economism and dehumanisation.” 74
“The Memorandum has a “top-down” perspective. The individual exists for the growth of society,
and knowledge, skills and learning are regarded as instrumental. Lifelong learning is largely justified
on the grounds that knowledge and skills are the “source” of economic growth. The value of education
as an end in itself disappears and “societal life” takes priority over the “individual’s life”. Learning is regarded
as instrumental, and not having a value in itself. If motivation, participation and enjoyment are
to be promoted, this perspective must be transformed.” 75
“The view of knowledge can thus be instrumental and detached from the view of education that
characterizes our own traditions in popular adult education and which have a vital impact on the personal
development of the individual. The bias to academic and utilitarian views characterizing learning,
from the very youngest to the elderly, must be questioned.” 76
Efter dette forsvar for en humanistisk pædagogisk forståelse mod en instrumentel forsimpling kritiserer det
svenske høringssvar også Kommissionens Kompetencekatalog for at være for ensidigt erhvervsrettet:
“The necessary basic skills set out in the Memorandum have a bias towards working life at the cost
of active citizenship and opportunities for creating and living in good heterogeneous societies. Two
important skills which are not mentioned are the ability to deal with complexity, and understanding
the perspectives of different groups instead of asserting personal standpoints in dialogues and action
meetings with others.” 77
72 The Swedish Debate, June 2001, p. 6-7
73 The Swedish Debate, June 2001, p. 7
74 The Swedish Debate, June 2001, p. 8
75 The Swedish Debate, June 2001, p. 8
76 The Swedish Debate, June 2001, p. 9
77 The Swedish Debate, June 2001, p. 31-32
44