8308
Pre-retirement education: origins and destinations
Chris Phillipson, University of Keele
Introduction
The future of pre-retirement education (PRE) is presently under the microscope, as industrial corporations review expenditure on social and welfare programmes. Recently completed research at the Universities of Surrey[1] and Keele[2] have questioned the effectiveness of current work. This article attempts to provide both a historical perspective on the present difficulties facing PRE, together with suggestions as to how it must be reshaped in a context of economic recession and mass unemployment.
Pre-retirement education: social and political origins
Formal retirement programmes (as distinct from informal preparation via books, friends and family) occupy an important sector within the range of programmes aimed at older learners[3]. Courses were first developed (by labour unions and industrial corporations) in America in the late 1940s; crossing to the UK in the mid-1950s, with pioneering work in the Midlands and in Scotland. The Pre-Retirement Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was founded in 1964, with the aim of stimulating both new regional and local associations, together with advocacy of employer and trade union responsibility for PRE. In the United States, there has been a sharper focus on the role of labour unions and corporations, with no comparable network of voluntary associations.
Differences in the organisation of PRE have, however, been submerged by similar perspectives on retirement itself. In the 1950s and 1960s, stress was laid upon the harmful psychological effects of compulsory retirement. Preparation programmes were seen as a means of harnessing the undoubted potential of retirement as a social institution, with the energy and resources of older people. The retirement problem was seen in terms of people’s ability to handle key resources of time, money and personal relationships. The objective of PRE was to assist the individual's adjustment to the altered balance between and within each of these areas.
We can identify two important characteristics of PRE, both in its early and later stages. Firstly, the relationship between the individual and the course was viewed in terms of a ‘back-to-school approach’, with individuals ‘re-learning’ a new perspective on living (this being provided by an ‘enlightened’ group of tutors). Secondly, some important structural issues in the development of retirement were ignored, with inequalities in the workplace and in the Community receiving only limited attention.
Both of these elements have hindered PRE’s growth and development. The ‘back-to-school’ approach encouraged authoritarian models of organisation, with courses appearing as highly structured events, allowing only minimal audience participation. Programmes would rely upon a lecture (lasting upwards of 50 minutes) to disseminate ideas and material. Needless to say, this had (and continues to have) a somewhat numbing effect upon the audience, many of whom may have had their last experience of this approach during their schooling. This question of ‘authoritarianism’ has been a particular problem in British work. Many tutors will come to the course, determined to convey their own unique philosophy about the way in which a perfect retirement can be realised. Unfortunately, this philosophy is usually unexceptional or quite remote from the lifestyles and material expectations of the target audience. The American scene suggests a gradual departure from this approach. And it is noticeable that, in comparison to the British, American workers have developed a broader range of course materials and designs.
The reason for this divergence may be attributed, at least in part, to new perspectives on retirement, developed within American social gerontology. Both countries shared an initial disenchantment with the idea of retirement: theorists in the US identifying this in terms of a ‘roleless role’ created through leaving work[4]. However, by the late 1960s, the American literature showed a discernible shift towards acceptance of the demographic and economic realities underpinning retirement. This movement was itself important in encouraging more progressive and creative approaches to PRE.
British programmes, by contrast, were still focusing upon retirement as a form of ‘social death’; emphasising, at the same time, the need to maintain constructive activity (in full or part-time work or in sheltered workshops).
The second characteristic of early work in PRE concerns the limited attention to structural changes and inequalities, within both the workplace and in the community. In Britain, as we have already argued, many of those involved with PRE actually had very negative views about the benefits of retirement. They campaigned (along with many of those concerned with social aspects of ageing) for the ending of compulsory retirement, and the introduction of a more flexible system. People, it was argued, should be given the opportunity to work beyond the ages set by Bismarck in the nineteenth century. The institutional barriers preventing them, were seen to represent a major form of discrimination, one which couldn’t be justified given the need of individual’s for income and occupation[5].
There is no doubt that the arguments advanced had a basis in many people's experience of retirement[6] has documented the close relationship between retirement and reduced income). However, the lengthy campaign against compulsory retirement, diverted attention from major transformations taking place within the workplace. In Britain, changes in technology, combined with low rates of investment and a world recession, had created a crisis in the employment of old and young, men and women[7]. The meaning of flexible retirement was quickly perceived in terms of leaving earlier rather than working later (public support for lowering the retirement age was firmly established during the late 1970s and early 1980s[8]).
Unfortunately the PRE movement failed to predict these structural changes, moves which were undermining the position of older workers. It cannot be blamed entirely for this. Other organisations (both non-academic and academic) have achieved only limited success when attempting to forecast change. However, that it took so long to respond to these changes, was a major error: a feature which was to cost PRE much goodwill and support. Thus, thousands of men and women were to take early retirement, some being ejected from their jobs with obscene haste: an experience which must have caused painful upheaval where income and other resources were in short supply[9]. Yet, how many were to have the preparation course which could have eased their transition? How many received financial guidance to assist in making the crucial economic decisions? In this period, British industry was restructured on a vast scale, with the consequent displacement of millions of individuals. Unfortunately, the PRE movement was found wanting in its ability to influence the character of this transformation. This could be asking too much from a movement which remains small in both numbers and national influence. Yet, growth has also been impeded by the rigidity of thought which still characterises work in this area (particularly in the planning, development and evaluation of courses).
Finally, the failure to appreciate persistent work and community-based inequalities, removed an important radical thrust in discussions about PRE. Advocacy of retirement preparation, carried to its logical conclusion, represents a major critique of many features of industrial organisation. Ideas of ‘planning’ and control over one’s career, represent a major departure from the experience of most workers. Indeed, the idea of financial planning is itself inconsistent with existing conditions in occupational pension schemes, whereby employees are usually unaware of how their pension is calculated and play a minimal role in actual investment decisions[10]. These elements reinforce the notion of retirement as an event largely outside the individual’s control, a ‘successful’ retirement being dependent upon ‘luck’ and ‘good fortune’.
Identifying the radical implications of PRE, might have lead to important refinements in course designs. Instead, we were left with remedial forms of PRE. Courses which, as Arthur Stock[11] has suggested, represent little more than ‘first aid measures for the imminently disadvantaged’.
Distinctions
In the preceding section, I have tried to provide a framework for understanding some of PRE’s current difficulties. I shall now present some ideas for providing new directions for an important area of educational work. There are three points of reference around which the discussion can be focused:
1. Sociological perspectives
2. Adult education
3. The role of evaluation.
1. Sociological perspectives
A central problem for PRE has been its retention of simplistic views about the retirement experience. This has induced unwarranted pessimism both about the psychological impact of retirement, and the range of lifestyles which can be created. What the movement needs to develop is, firstly, an understanding of the heterogeneity of the retired population; secondly, the enormous range of retirement experiences; thirdly, the complexity of retirement as a social institution. The first two points are self-evident and there is considerable material available to the interested course tutor or organiser.[12] The third point deserves amplification. A useful set of distinctions has been drawn by David Peterson:
Retirement can be seen in several contexts. It is a process that begins with informal planning for the situation; it is an event that is often accompanied by a ceremony and a gift from the employer and peers; it is a social role which replaces that of worker and which is suggested by some to have few clear attributes ...; and it is a phase or life that begins with the retirement event and ends when the person becomes dependent and/or institutionalised and unable to carry out the retirement roles ...[13]
My argument is that the organiser, by immersing him or herself in sociological and related studies, will create a richer and more imaginative range of courses. Moreover, the designs produced will bear some resemblance to the contemporary experience of leaving work, and the aspirations of course participants.
2. Adult education
A more complex, sociological view of retirement, also raises important issues in terms of educational theory and practice. Understanding the heterogeneity of the retired will place a premium on using adult education methods. The application of such methods has received an important stimulus from the British, Universities Council for Adult and Continuing Education (UCACE), whose recently published report ‘Education and Older Adults’[14], sets out the ease for university involvement in PRE. The report identifies the following areas of contribution:
a) Direct provision of learning opportunities, through lifelong learning programmes, ranging from mid-life planning through to retirement itself.
b) Preparing the professionals for specific roles as chairman, tutors, counsellors, course organisers and other key roles.
c) Research and development programmes which span educational, organisational, social, cultural, health and other spheres.
d) Acting as neutral, locally based, resource centres removed from the pressures of political expediency, financial constraint and the prejudices of specific pressure groups.
The document goes on to note that in some of these activities it will act on its own, but in other instances ‘it will operate in partnership with other organisations either in a participatory or consultative capacity’[15] As part of the closer liaison between PRE and the university system, the Department of Extra-Mural Studies at Manchester and the Department of Adult Education at Surrey are acting as ‘hosts’ to, respectively, the training and resource sections of the newly restructured Pre Retirement Association.
The involvement of universities (and particularly departments of adult education) is crucial to improving the quality of PRE. Many of the Keele recommendations for developing alternative models and designs, revolve around the application of basic adult education principles. It can be argued that the low growth and poor quality of PRE reflects, in part, the limited influence (and interest) of adult educators. PRE came to be viewed as constituting a technical, managerial and administrative problem, one which was safely removed from the sphere of interest of those versed in adult education methods. In the long term this led to the isolation of PRE, together with a backwardness as regards methodology and learning techniques. In addition, there emerged within the movement, a suspicion and distrust at formal attempts to assess the effectiveness of courses. Organisers, trapped in an endless struggle for funds and good speakers, preferred an instinctual and common-sense approach to course evaluation. However, there are grounds for believing this approach to be insufficient, and for suggesting a deeper commitment to studying the merits and shortcomings of particular courses.
3. Research and evaluation
Systematic evaluation of retirement programmes remains distinctly patchy. American evaluation research can be identified from the 1950s onwards, with Hunter’s work at Michigan[16] and Glamser’s PhD research[17], representing significant developments both in methodology and findings. A British contribution in this area has been less forthcoming, although this partly reflects the slow development of social gerontology as an academic discipline.
Even in America, however, research has often been poorly designed, lacking both a longitudinal element and control groups (the work by Hunter and Glamser remains exceptional in this regard). Admittedly, the research funds for lengthy projects are unlikely to be forthcoming in the present period. Moreover, experimental designs in PRE will always be difficult, given the implication that some individuals must be denied access to courses (at least until after the period of the research). However, it should be possible to design quasi-experimental approaches, designs which allow a limited period for follow-up interviews with attendees and non-attendees. In the case of Britain, one would hope that the newly restructured PRA will support and stimulate fresh research initiatives, following the work at Keele and Surrey.
Alongside this commitment to further research, it will also be important to acknowledge the essentially experimental nature of PRE. This is particularly relevant in the present economic period, where radical changes are taking place in both attitudes and expectations towards work and retirement. In this context, the emphasis must be on continual reassessment of programme structure and content, with a deeper acceptance of the retirees own role in designing each course. Such injunctions are, of course, relatively easy to make; they are less easy to implement in practice. This is particularly the case where resources of funds and personnel are in short supply - the British Retirement Councils are a case in point. If there continues to be resistance to adopting a more experimental approach to PRE, programmes will inevitably lag behind the views of participants and new cohorts of retirees. Whilst this continues to happen, further growth in PRE is extremely unlikely.
[1] Coleman, A., edited by Groombridge, J,. Preparation for retirement in England and Wales: a national