Time to abandon wider participation?

September 18, 2009 by
Filed under: Public policy, The RSA 

For decades Government has seen increasing young people’s participation in post compulsory education – particularly higher education – as a key objective. Michael Gove’s approach implicitly calls this goal into question. He may now find support from an unexpected direction.

Yesterday saw the launch at the RSA of ‘Learning Through Life’, an inquiry into the future of lifelong learning conducted by NIACE (the National Institute of Adult Continuing Learning). It is an excellent piece of work, combining powerful analysis and a compelling conceptual framework with solid policy recommendations. It didn’t have to be that way. In my experience inquiries like this conducted by commissions of the great and the good are often long on warm words and lofty aspiration but short on edge and innovation. Also, the subject matter isn’t always presented in the most fascinating of terms. I told a slightly shocked Great Room of the time I had met a colleague at IPPR and asked ‘were you at the lifelong learning seminar?’, ‘I don’t know’ she said ‘but it certainly felt that way’.

The report argues that we should see learning through life as having four distinct 25 year phases. It recommends that over the next ten years, partly in response to changing demography, we should gradually shift resources from the first phase (0-25) towards the other three phases and a particularly the last two. The benefits of learning for the employment prospects and well-being of adults and elders is well known yet they get a tiny share of the overall spend. Because 85% of spending is concentrated on the first phase, just limiting growth in this sector frees up resources that could transform provision in later years.

This is where there may be an opening to make common cause with the Conservatives. In alleging a dumbing down in standards, in criticising attempts to make learning ‘relevant’, and in pledging to discourage students from doing ‘softer’ subjects like media studies, Michael Gove is implicitly arguing that the bar for academic attainment (and progression) should be lifted. Whilst over the long term we all hope more children will reach higher levels of achievement, in the shorter and medium term this approach suggests an end to the expansion of post compulsory academic participation.

The NIACE Commission is suggesting shifting resources from the under 25 group by slowing growth in per capita spending, but if the Conservatives’ policies put a cap on places in higher education this would enable a greater transfer of resources. After all, wouldn’t it be better to spend limited resources on transforming the opportunities for personal growth and social engagement among older people than on shoehorning into college the last remnants of lower middle class youth not already there (regardless of whether they have any academic aptitude)?

Until now the Conservatives have not wanted to explore what their ‘back to basics’ approach to the school curriculum means for post 18 participation rates. This is one of the questions I posed to Michael Gove nearly two months ago. He and his team have promised me a response and I am still waiting. Maybe with the NIACE report they have a new – progressive – rationale for limiting state funding for HE to those who have reached the academic gold standard.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

3 Comments on Time to abandon wider participation?

  1. Joe Nutt on Sat, 19th Sep 2009 11:04 am

    2. Isn’t it also important to come clean about this and point the finger of blame at an intrusive, overbearing state and its keenest proponents for the last century or more?It is that arrogantly autocratic mindset which has suffocated all the very many, charitable or commercial organisations devoted to self-improvement and education for working class people, whether the factory orchestra or the evening class, by fielding one state run body after another to micro-manage every aspect of ordinary citizens’ lives? And it is still going on!

    The only qualification I would make to your key rhetorical question: “wouldn’t it be better to spend limited resources on transforming the opportunities for personal growth and social engagement among older people than on shoehorning into college the last remnants of lower middle class youth not already there (regardless of whether they have any academic aptitude)?” would be to suggest perhaps we should consider letting the individuals themselves decide how they want to spend those limited resources: and not deprive them of the resources first and then spend it for them?

  2. tom schuller on Sat, 19th Sep 2009 2:16 pm

    3. On Joe Nutt’s choice point: this is why we propose, in the report Learning Through Life about which Matthew writes, a national system of Learner Accounts, Learner Accounts would give people more choice about what and when the ywant to learn. We suggest that these should start at age 25, and be kickstarted by diverting some of the public money currently going into Child Trust Funds – on the basis that it’s better to have an investment in learning (of any kind) than just a lump of cash at age 18.

  3. David Dickinson on Sun, 20th Sep 2009 9:45 am

    4. Yes an interesting perspective. Is it gaining cross-party support, especially when considered against Ed Balls’ announcement (Andrew Marr, 20th Sept) that he believes he can cut £2bn from the education budget without affecting young people’s life chances?

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!