Lifelong learning - International Labour Organization

have been encouraged by evidence that adult learners tend to be more active in their
communities than are non-learners (McGivney 1993). The hope is that lifelong learning
will galvanize not only disadvantaged individuals but also their communities, and thereby
generate more neighbourly and safer social relations (“the oil of community development”,
loc. cit.; DfEE 1998a, 1999a: 60).
As the importance attached to these differing goals varies, so does the content of the
lifelong learning agenda. For example, a high implicit priority to efficiency is suggested in
the OECD’s exclusion of post-retirement learning (University of the Third Age, etc.) from
its otherwise comprehensive approach. In the European Union, the Italian, Swedish and
Spanish Governments explicitly give more weight to equity and personal development,
relative to efficiency, than do their British and Dutch counterparts. In Britain, the current
government, while sharing its predecessor’s prioritization of efficiency, gives greater
weight than it to equity and developmental concerns. By contrast, educationists criticise
the economic and instrumental orientation of much lifelong learning advocacy, and
emphasize instead the power of learning to build confidence and even transform
consciousness (OECD 2001; CEDEFOP 2002: 9; DfEE 1998a; Jarvis 1993; West 1995).
This discussion gives weight to the first three objectives, while accepting the priority
of social justice and personal development over efficiency for most European
Governments. Community development is largely set aside: it might well benefit from any
expansion of lifelong learning, but the links are complex and fragile.
4 WP/Formatted only/WP15.doc