THE RISE OF A LEARNING REGIME IN EUROPE
TRANSNATIONAL POLICY-TERMS MAPPED AND DISCUSSED
By Søren Ehlers, Aarhus University, Denmark
Key words: adult learning, bottom-up, discontinuity, individualism, integration, policy-terms
Abstract
Policy terms lead to change. They appear and disappear in policy papers across time and space and instigate continuity or discontinuity. To understand how this happens, policy terms need to be mapped. It could be done through a systematic analysis of models, hypotheses, quantitative data, antonyms and studies of time and space – in comparison. Appearance of the term Lifelong Learning and the change from Teaching Regime to Learning Regime is used as an example in this paper to show how this mapping could be done.
I. Introduction
The key elements signifying changes are policy terms used in policies and it is interesting to understand how they change in policy documents, leading to changes in policies and thereby, changing all aspects of life. Education policies in the last few decades could be understood much by studying the inclusion and exclusion of the term Lifelong Learning (LLL) in policy documents in an implicit or explicit way. However, the use of the term as just an idea and as a reform is not the same. [1] Much of the influence of a term comes from how it is included in a policy document. May differentiates between policy design and policy implementation[2] and it is important to see whether a term is a part of policy design or whether it is a part of the implementation. It remains just an idea until it is included finally in the implementation and this inclusion marks discontinuity or change.
Lifelong Learning (LLL) is labelled as a regime[3], designed by the EU, which is changing the rules of the game in education. A systematic mapping of terms shows how the term Learning appeared implicit or explicit in policy documents. Governments, intergovernmental bodies, and multi-national corporations were promoting new policy-terms before the EU took the lead. The methodology is based on models, hypotheses, quantitative data, antonyms and studies of time and space – in comparison.
December 1965 is taken as departure, which marks the beginning of this new regime in three ways: The horizontal and vertical integration of education policies (promoted by UNESCO), funding by the Nordic Council of Ministers for Adult Education and the acknowledgement of the term Adult Learning (by the Norwegian Government).
It took 11 years in Norway to design Adult Learning as a reform. In 1995, the European Union (hereafter the EU) announced 1996 as The European Year of Lifelong Learning, which marked the regime change- from a Teaching regime to a Learning regime. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (hereafter the OECD) delivered a report called Lifelong Learning for All to its member countries in January 1996 while a global actor, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (hereafter the UNESCO), published the report Learning – the Treasure within in the Spring of 1996. The EU, the OECD, and the UNESCO, three intergovernmental bodies, took action within few months and were all saying much the same.[4]
The European Commission worked on the policy design for 11 years (1996-2006) and the implementation process took off in the EU member states. The European Commission integrated the existing educational programmes, included adults as a target group and announced The Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 followed by an announcement of funding 6.9 billion Euros by the EU[5] for development of national strategies aligning to LLL.[6] Consequently, the EU decided and funded the development of a transnational policy-design, the OECD delivered expertise, and the UNESCO did marketing.
II. Theoretical framework
The growth in science production, in professionalization strategies, and in policy-designs (see the graphics in Figure 2, 3, and 4) makes it reasonable to apply an analytical model having more than one way. Figure 1 makes a consistent distinction between four Ways of Thinking. No more, not less.
Figure 1. Analytical Model about Thinking in Boxes
Way of Thinking embedded in Practice / Way of Thinking embedded in ScienceWay of Thinking embedded in Profession / Way of Thinking embedded in Policy
Source: Ehlers 2006a:10-11.
The rationale behind the construction of the analytical model (Figure 1) is that the Way of Thinking embedded in one box will never be compatible with the Way of Thinking embedded in the other boxes.[7] Thinking completely out of the box is a utopia. The analytical model is constructed as a tool for studies of terminology. The assumption is that that the appearance of a new term in one of the boxes indicates Discontinuity. The crucial question is always: Which box is the home of the term? Context matters!
This analytical strategy was applied in a study of Danish policy-design in 2004.[8] During the implementation, policy-makers try to alter the Ways of Thinking in the Profession Box. However, the Way of Thinking embedded in the Policy Box can, according to this study, never be aligned with the Way of Thinking embedded in the Profession Box. Also, the normative approach, embedded in the Profession Box, is conflicting with the descriptive approach in the Science Box.
The focus, in the current study, is upon the terms (often referred to as floating signifiers) [9] appearing in the Policy Box .
III. Hypotheses and quantitative data
Lifelong as a prefix to education can be rooted back to the centuries old philosophical discussions but Lifelong Education as a policy has a short history.[10]
A general assumption is that LLL appeared as two Generations: One in the 1970s and another in the 1990s. though there are disagreements about it. Lee et al. consider the late 1960s as the first peak phase for LLL.[11] Alexandra Dehmel refers to Kjell Rubenson acknowledging the existence of two generations of LLL.[12]
The study is considering the following hypotheses:
1) LLL as idea was promoted implicitly by transnational actors since 1965
2) LLL as reform was promoted explicitly by transnational actors since 1986
3) The European Internal Market triggered the transnational policy-design
Quantative data
A study of frequency of the terms Education, Teaching and Learning using Google Ngram in British English, French and German showed through the screenshots below suggests that appearance of the term Learning in publications showed minor discontinuity in the 1970s and major discontinuity in the 1990s in all three languages.
Interpretation of Figure 2 (British English)
Minor discontinuity occurred in the 1970s followed by major discontinuity in the 1980s and the 1990s.The order of appearance was after 1970: 1) Education, 2) Teaching, and 3) Learning. The order of appearance changed after 2000 to: 1) Learning, 2) Education and 3) Teaching.
Interpretation of Figure 2 (French)
No major discontinuity occurred in the 1970s. Discontinuity occurred in the 1980s and the 1990s.
The order of appearance after the 1970s was: 1) Enseignement, 2) Formation and 3) Èducation. The order of appearance changed in the 1980s to: 1) Formation 2) Enseignement, and 3) Èducation.
Interpretation of Figure 4 (German)
Major discontinuity occurred in the 1970s followed by minor discontinuity in the 1980s. Major discontinuity in the 1990s occurred once again.
The order of appearance was after 1970s: 1) Erziehung, 2) Lernen, and 3) Lehren. The order of appearance changed in the 1990s to: 1) Lernen, 2) Erziehung, and 3) Lehren.
The indications of discontinuity in Figure 4 are probably the most valid as to EU member states. The German language was frequent in Europe though English and French were used in written communication outside Europe too in former colonies. The German term Lernen became more frequent in the 1990s.
Jakobi, while differentiating between LLL as idea (Profession Box) and LLL as reform (Policy Box), took 1996 as the point of departure and concluded that LLL is becoming a global norm. One of her findings is that OECD-countries (rich countries) implemented LLL as reform while non-OECD countries (less rich countries) elaborated upon LLL as idea.[13]
The European Commission acknowledged Learning as a policy-term since December 1995 and promoted 1996 as The European Year of Lifelong Learning. OECD member countries were the first to re-design the strategies for education policy. How to label the new situation? Was an Evolution going on?[14] Would it give sense to call the discontinuity a Paradigm?[15] Maybe a Silent Explosion?[16] Or rather, one Regime replacing another Regime?[17]
IV. Integrated education
Integrated education policy, with adults as one of the target group characterizes the Learning regime. The term horizontal integration implies a process where activities on the same level are aligned with each other. Where as the term vertical integration is defined as a process where educational activities are aligned with each other in order to make it possible for the individual learners to move from one educational level to the next educational level - from birth until death.
Despite the fact that adults constitute the majority in all populations, educational opportunities for them are not given preference in policies perhaps due to the enormous burden of teaching children and youth and the assumption that all adults have had educational opportunities as children or youth. However, the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom have provided public funds for educational offers to adults since long.[18]
The design of Norwegian education policy in the 1960s-70s was radical and influenced by scientific studies.[19]. The government replaced the old term Folkeopplysning (with a top-down approach)[20] with the new term Voksenopplæring (adult learning) in 1965 to integrate two public policies: 1) the traditional educational cultural work provided by schools and voluntary organizations and 2) vocational and work-related education and training arranged by employers, trade unions, professional bodies and labour market boards. The Norwegian policy-design was radical and similar to the designs promoted by transnational actors in the 1960s and 70s. [21] In 1976, the Norwegian Parliament passed: 1) Adult Learning as reform and 2) the establishment of Norsk Voksenpedagogisk Institutt (a national institute for andragogy).
At the transnational level, the change began in UNESCO. Following the Montreal conference (1960), UNESCO appointed a Consultative Committee for the Advancement of Adult Education, which recommended a focus on Life-long Education for all among other recommendations. A European conference at the UNESCO institute in Hamburg followed in August 1962 where the themes aligned Adult Education to: 1) Society, 2) Work, and 3) The Individual. [22] The terms Life-long Education and the Individual were therefore, on the UNESCO agenda in the early 1960s.
The following definition of Lifelong Education (more political than conceptual)[23] adopted by UNESCO in 1965 was much more than just a definition:
…the animating principle of the whole process of education, regarded as continuing through an individuals`s life from his earliest childhood to the end of his days, and therefore calling for integrated organization. The necessary integration should be achieved both vertically, through the duration of life, and horizontally to cover all the various aspects of the life of individuals and societies….[24]
UNESCO, a global actor, appealed its member states to integrate and re-design education policies. UNESCO acknowledged the importance of an individual learner along with the society. In other words: Discontinuity was implied since December 1965.
The Council of Europe treated adult education as a culture policy and its Out-of-School-Education Committee (chaired by a Norwegian) organized a conference about adult education, hosted by Norway in 1965. The committee acknowledged the term Permanent Education as the European name for Lifelong Education[25] while France was promoting the term Èducation Permanente (term in French with the same meaning). In 1969 at a meeting of Education Ministers at Versailles, France promoted the term Permanent Education whereas Sweden promoted the term Recurrent Education. Permanent Education finally became dominant because UNESCO had a French General Director.
No intergovernmental body was in the 1960s acknowledging or recommending LLL. Also, the term Permanent Education, acknowledged by Council of Europe, and the term Lifelong Education, acknowledged by UNESCO, were synonymously interpreted.
V. Policy terms by the UNESCO, the OECD, and the World Bank
In 1970, the UNESCO General Assembly appointed an international commission led by Edgar Faure (former French minister) to analyse the world educational crisis[26][27], which came up with a report, translated into several languages with 21 recommendations. The report was released in December 1972, four months after the UNESCO World Conference (Tokyo 1972) and the Commission was able to consider the outcomes of the intergovernmental negotiations in Tokyo. The words used in the first recommendation were:
Tout individu doit avoir la possibilité d`apprendre pendant sa vie entière. L ìdée d’éducation permanente est la clé de voûte de la cité éducative.[28]
Every individual must be in a position to be learning throughout his life. The idea of lifelong education is the keystone of the learning society.[29]
Jeder muss die Möglichkeit haben, während seines ganzen Lebens zu lernen. Die Idee permanenter Erziehung ist der Grundstein der Lerngesellschaft.[30]
The seven authors of the report wrote in their own right and did not represent UNESCO but the first recommendation focused upon the needs of the individual in alignment with UNESCO’s 1965 definition of Lifelong Education. There are no differences between the French text and the translations into English and German and all three versions acknowledge an individualistic approach.
The second sentence is having differences. The formulation in French is radical because the term Citè is less abstract than the term Society. Cities are living realities. The sentence in German includes Erziehung (upbringing), a rather conservative (top-down) term as compared to Éducation and Education. The argument is: The terms in the three versions reflect different national approaches. A similar finding in a document from 1995 is described later in the text. This shows there is a never-ending disagreement in the Policy Box (Figure 1 in section IV) because of the difference in interests.
OECD was not promoting LLL in the 1970s. In a report called Recurrent Education. A strategy for Lifelong Learning in 1973 by The Center for Educational Research and Innovation (the CERI), a research unit within the OECD, comprising Swedish and Norwegian experts, the acronym OECD was missing. The term Recurrent Education from Sweden was used and the member countries discussed the CERI proposal until 1978/1979 when the overall policy context changed due to the second oil shock.[31] The introduction to the report considered the term LLL and referred to learning theory.[32] The CERI activities were, actually, isolated within the OECD.[33]