There is a lot of contestation around the term lifelong learning which reflects different economic and ideological interests that tend to affect its implementation. In this section, I present the impact of the influence of the neoliberal framework in operationalising the lifelong learning approach (Livingstone, 2008; Youngman, 2000). This will be followed by how different contexts impact on the interpretations and subsequently the focus of the lifelong learning approach in countries of the North and South (Preece, 2009).
3.5.1 The lifelong learning approach and the neoliberal influence
In the section on the origins of the lifelong learning approach, I presented that the approach, dominated by neoliberalism, reflected a broader change that took place in the international political and economic context (Barros, 2012; Hager, 2011; Youngman, 2000). According to Barros (2012), the concern of the neoliberal political consensus is the future of the economy, the development of policies and the role of the state in the economy. So, within neoliberalism, a new global economy associated with a growing prevalence of financial investment, as a way of thinking about the economy, as well as the emergence of a new international division of labour, came into being (ibid.).
The neoliberal framework centres on the idea that the way to ensure an efficient and productive economy and maximise economic welfare is through a market driven mechanism (Davies & Bansel, 2007; Hursh, 2001; Tarabini, 2010; Youngman, 2000). The framework views governments’ interventions as disruptive and which have to be removed to liberalize capital flow and trade worldwide. In what appeared to be the promotion of democracy and
66
individual freedom, countries are encouraged to develop policies promoting the privatization of public enterprises, deregulating government control systems, and expanding their international free trade. However, this ‘democracy’ and ‘individual freedom’ result in countries competing in this international free trade according to their comparative advantage. The comparative advantage has resulted in advanced countries being at an advantage in using conditions set in international trade agreements and sanctioned by organisations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to pressurize governments of the South to reduce their public sectors and open up economies to foreign trade and investment (Youngman, 2000). Through these comparative trade systems, the advanced countries tend to strengthen the Third World countries’ reliance on the market mechanism. The comparative trade systems tend to maintain the role of Third World countries’ as exporters of raw materials rather than producers (ibid.).
The implications of the neoliberal framework for education are that governments needed to re-orient their educational services towards the needs or demands of business (Davies & Bansel, p, 2007; Hursh, 2001; Youngman, 2000). According to Youngman (2000), this perspective entailed a shift in the driving forces from bureaucracy-led (national or state- controlled) systems, to market-led arrangements which were believed to be empowering communities. He argues that within this perspective, the realities of existing inequalities are viewed as individual incentives for competition in the world of work. The perspective therefore rejects the concern for state support of efforts to secure educational equity amongst its citizens.
In the 1990s, the neoliberal emphasis on the reduction of state interference or support was meant to further embrace the development of educational policies promoting what looked like individual freedom and choices for economic growth (Youngman, 2000). The influence of the neoliberal framework resulted in international educational bodies and subsequently governments, insisting on greater efficiency and accountability from educational establishments (Aspin, 2012; Davies & Bansel, 2007; Tarabini, 2010). It was also at this time that UNESCO emphasised again the promotion of lifelong learning based on the Delors report: The Treasure Within (1996). In the 21st century the international focus, basically from UNESCO, on lifelong learning resulted not only in the review of the Faure (1972) and Delors (1996) reports but also in the concept being the focus of international conferences (Medel- Anonvevo, 2002; Yang & Valdes-Cotera, 2011). This happened through events such as the World Conference on Education for All (EFA) held in Jomtien in 1990, the Fifth Conference
67
on Adult Education held in Hamburg in 1997, the World Education Forum held in Dakar in 2000, the International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA) (2009) and the World Conference on Sustainable Development (2012). The World Conference on Education for All (EFA) (1990) used the lifelong learning framework to come up with education targets that were set for 2015 (Preece, 2009, Yang & Valdes-Cotera, 2011). The Education for All had six targets: Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), Universal Primary Education (UPE), Learning Needs of All Youth and Adults, Improving Levels of Adult Literacy, Gender Parity in Primary Education, and Educational Quality. These targets promoted efforts made to ensure educational provision spanning from Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) to adulthood including universal primary education, life skills, literacy and gender equality (Preece, 2009).
However, the Education for All initiative failed to achieve the lifelong learning objective, particularly in the Third World countries, as it did not consider the contexts nor the learner profiles (Aspin et al., 2012; Torres, 2011). Governments were only encouraged to review policies to address issues of access caused by physical and temporal disjuncture and to implement universal and massive educational interventions to raise learners’ profiles for economic transformation. However, the learners themselves were not involved in the decisions taken for these interventions. For instance, the findings revealed that the socio- economic profiles of learners contributed to unequal access to the educational provision (Aspin et al., 2012). Another major finding was that parents’ educational backgrounds, occupations and household incomes were other elements contributing to the youth’s lack of access to education and employment. International educational research and monitoring reportsdid not include the views of those affected which could have revealed the gaps which contributed to the failure of the Education for All initiative (Torres, 2002).
To conclude this section, it is also worth noting that, although the implementation of the above-mentioned educational policies were to be applicable to all countries, both rich and poor, some became an initiative more for the poor than the rich countries (Preece, 2009; Torres, 2011). For Torres (2002, p. 6), for instance, the Education for All initiative was a message from the rich to the poor countries that in their lifetime the poor should ‘make sure that they get a bit of literacy, a bit of numeracy and that they are happy with it for the rest of their lives’. The section below details the interpretation of the lifelong learning approach by the countries of the North and South particularly using the neoliberal framework lens.
68
3.5.2 Interpretation of the lifelong learning approach in the North and South10 through the neoliberal lens
The lifelong learning approach was meant to be a global initiative; however, in practice the approach was interpreted differently in the countries of the North and South (Torres, 2002; Preece, 2009). For countries of the North the lifelong learning approach was adopted as an organising principle in pushing their agenda for the knowledge society in the 21st century. The approach was viewed as key to political, societal and educational advancement. As a result, The European Memorandum for lifelong learning came onto the scene in 2000 and defined lifelong learning as ‘an all purposeful activity, undertaken on an on-going basis with the aim of improving knowledge, skill and competence . . . To adjust to the demands of social and economic change and to participate actively in the shaping of Europe’s future’ (The Commission of European Communities, 2000, p. 3).
The European Memorandum ‘synergistically combined lifelong learning and its dual relationship to citizenship and employment and promoted active citizenship, necessary knowledge and skills, values and attitudes towards employment and work’ (ibid., p. 3). The emphasis here was social inclusion as lifelong learning was viewed as arguing for continuous learning for individuals to be, to do, to know, and to live together. So, for the North embracing the lifelong learning concept was feasible as the citizens had plenty of opportunities for lifelong learning. The youth and adults could access any form of education as there was a large coverage for formal education, Non-formal Education was practised in its own right and informal learning was becoming a part of organised learning. Average citizens had access to early childhood education and adult education. However, even with all these conditions in place, the involvement of the beneficiaries in policy formation was minimal if any.
Whilst lifelong learning emphasized broadening the opportunities of acquiring skills and knowledge beyond formal education and included non-formal and informal learning in the North, the South was faced with livelihood challenges, especially for the poor (Torres, 2002 Preece, 2009). Many countries of the South, Eswatini included, were faced with a low
10
North and South: Commonly used to refer to the contemporary division between rich and poor countries in the global political economy. From the early 1950s these areas were referred to as the Third World, to indicate countries outside the First World of advanced industrial capitalism and the Second World of industrialised state socialism. However, the Second World collapsed in 1989-91; therefore the terminology South and North (Youngman, 2000).
69
completion rate in primary education which had an impact on the transition to secondary and tertiary education and subsequently to the world of work.
As presented in Chapter Two, one of the contributing factors to being categorized as NEETs is a lack of education and skills. The lack of skill is exacerbated by the fact that, for the countries of the South, as opposed to the North, the fundamental problem is educational access and Non-formal Education is still viewed as a second-hand, compensatory or remedial kind of education for the poor and not for all. Although literature argues that human beings tend to learn a lot informally (Torres, 2002), countries of the South need to recognize this form of learning. Therefore, for the countries of the South the expanded vision of education enshrined in the lifelong learning approach was not inculcated within their educational policies. For these countries basic education was not viewed as the foundation for lifelong learning but as a target for education for the poor.
Therefore, I agree with Torres (2011) that the interpretation and implementation of the lifelong learning approach through the Education for All initiative was different for countries of the North and of the South. As a result of these interpretations, achieving the objectives of the lifelong learning approach was not realized. The focus on basic education has made the EFA goals to be about formal education from pre-primary to tertiary levels. In this way it tends to create a divide between formal and Non-formal Education and ignores informal learning. It does not acknowledge literacy education as a basic learning need and associates adult education and literacy as education for the poor, disadvantaged and underprivileged. The focus does not view all learning as continuous that includes non-formal, adult education and literacy. Coupled with the Millenium Development Goals, the Education for All initiative ‘became primary education for school children, children became the poorest girls on earth’ particularly in Africa and Asia (ibid, p. 6)
In concluding this section, the cited literature points out that, although the lifelong learning approach was meant for all countries, there was a divide in interpretations for the countries of the North and of the South. The neoliberal framework’s influence on educational policies had different impacts on educational goals. Faced with an array of socio-economic challenges, for the countries of the South ‘Education for All’ meant a struggle for survival, whilst for countries of the North it was a means of maintaining their dominant positions.
70