I read this for the first time this week (paper copy, I gave up
downloading the individual sections from the web) and was rather
disappointed, both with the vague rhetoric (what purpose is the report
trying to serve?) and with its emphasis on supply-side measures rather
than on learning.

To be fair the committee has 'continuing education' in its title before
'lifelong learning,' but the paper frequently equates learning with
education and training  -  reading it one is rarely reminded that
(most?) learning goes on without the support of education and training.
Relevant, because lifelong learning is about learning being endemic  -
approaching life learningfully, rather than in an unquestioning or
simple cause-effect way.  Part of this may involve dipping into the type
of resources mentioned in the report, but equally it need not;  and to
equate a learning culture with an education and training culture is
unduly limiting as well as exclusive.

The report is perhaps more effective at pointing to provision to assist
people to become more active learners, and if this means more effective
and better resourced ways of doing this - and to develop unrecognised
and undervalued abilities  -  then it's very welcome.  However, this is
not just about getting people into the formal system, and the report is
a little condescending towards people who are excluded from 'mainstream'
work and society;  some are very effective learners, though the focus of
their learning may not always fit with our assumptions.

Finally, I'm wary of the report's references to accreditation.
Certification as recognition of capability or achievement is fine, but
overemphasis on accreditation drives against intrinsic reasons for
learning and suggests that it's someone else's concern to decide what
types of learning are valuable and what are not.  If there is to be an
'inclusive' framework, what of the people who are excluded from it, or
choose not to participate?  Credit systems, levels and 'ladders of
progression' are divisive as well as enabling;  not good, for instance,
to be told you're only at level 3 because that's where your area of work
or interest stop, no matter how skilled you are or how deep your
understanding.  A society in which learning is genuinely endemic
probably has no need of qualifications, safety-related certificates
apart.

Deeper consideration is definitely needed:  time for another list.
Incidentally, I wonder how many people involved in the report are
reading this?

(Apologies for cross-posting).




Stan Lester
--
Stan Lester Developments
Taunton, UK

tel 01823 333091 
fax 01823 352339 

www.devmts.demon.co.uk


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%