5. UNESCO as a Policy Actor in Education
5.3 Lifelong learning: State supervision and individual
The critiques of education were accompanied by the invasion of political dis-courses by concerns with the economy and the market in AE, although UNESCO did not clearly assume the defence of neo-liberal principles (cf.
Field, 2001, 2006). This invasion became even clearer in the Delors Report (cf.
Delors et al., 1996). The underlying assumption in this document was that the world was becoming more complex, as a result of several factors, including
• globalisation, a phenomenon which was not exclusively economic, but also technological, scientific, and so forth, and which played a decisive role in the recognition of a range of problems, such as migration, cultural diversity, and the like
• the risks connected to work and employment-related uncertainty, which posed new challenges for democracy
• social inequalities (which were maintained or which emerged in the meantime) and social and educational exclusion – circumstances in which education could not impose itself as a strategy for promoting equality.
It was in this setting that public education policies in many countries faced strong criticisms, in particular policies that focused on the disconnections be-tween education and economic development. Paradoxically, it was also in this context that the Commission responsible for the report focused on mak-ing education a priority, by argumak-ing that education was a vital asset for
build-ing a world in which peace, freedom, and social justice ruled (Delors et al., 1996, p. 13).
In spite of the leading role given to education, the tone associated with it changed when compared with the meanings expressed in the Faure Report. If the value of education was rooted in the fact that it enabled an understanding of the world and the conditions which described it, fostering the promotion of so-lidarity and tolerance, it also fostered the management of diversity and the de-velopment of a more aware and active citizenship, a participation more com-mitted to work and economic development (cf. Delors et al., 1996, p. 19). Thus the emphasis was on aspects related to the democratic-emancipatory model and to the modernisation and state control model, evident in the importance given to the interpretation of individuals’ living conditions, the promotion of respect for the other, and so forth. However, there was also a focus on aspects which rekindled concerns with work, economic productivity, and the like, as a result of changes ensuing from the internationalisation of the economy and competi-tiveness, related to the human resources management model. For this reason, there was a search for a balance, in itself complex, between broader, humanis-tic, and emancipatory conceptions of education, and conceptions of an instru-mental and adaptive nature, which would contribute to economic growth. This circumstance highlighted a ‘shift’ (cf. Griffin, 1999a, 1999b) in relation to po-litical documents previously produced by UNESCO.
The Delors Report stated that education policies consisted in a perma-nent process of enriching the knowledge and know-how that was useful and had economic value. Complementarily, it was also mentioned that these poli-cies resulted in a privileged route for the construction of the individual him-self and for establishing collaborative relationships between individuals, groups, and nations. It was in this engagement between education for compe-titiveness (cf. Guimarães, 2010) and the individualisation of education that disparate political goals converged. These involved a paradox, especially when one considered individuals’ expectations of economic development and social progress. This paradox followed from the disillusions tied to the in-crease in unemployment and social exclusion, the growing tensions between the global and the local, between the universal and the singular, between tra-dition and modernity. Strangely, it was in this context that LLL emerged as a core dimension in public policies, by encompassing answers for the econom-ic challenges of the twenty-first century. These answers involved increasingly individualised solutions, based on the experience acquired throughout life.
The learning to be ideal, put forward in the Faure Report, was re-established here, and three further pillars were added: learning to know, learning to do, and learning to live together.
Keywords: Education and change
The traditional distinction between initial education and continuing education therefore needs to be reconsidered. Continuing education that is really in harmony with the needs of modern societies can no longer be defined in relation to a particular time of life (adult educa-tion as opposed to the educaeduca-tion of the young, for instance) or to too specific a purpose (vocational as opposed to general). The time to learn is now the whole lifetime and each field of knowledge spreads into and enriches the others. As the twenty-first century approaches, educa-tion is so varied in its tasks and forms that it covers all the activities that enable people, from childhood to old age, to acquire a living knowledge of the world, of people and themselves.
Source: Delors et al., 1996, pp. 99ff.
In the eyes of the authors of the Delors Report, the traditional distinctions be-tween initial education and LLE, bebe-tween education of young people and adult education, did not make sense. In fact, there was a need to think based on an ‘educational continuum, coextensive with life and encompassing the dimensions of society’ which encompassed other educational modes and not just school education. They argued that
formal education systems tend to emphasize the acquisition of knowledge to the detriment of other types of learning: but it is vital now to conceive education in a more encompassing fashion. Such a vision should inform and guide future educational reforms and policy, in relation both to contents and to methods. (Delors et al., 1996, p. 18)
Thus there were quite clear differences between LLE and LLL. When com-pared with the Faure Report (cf. 1972), the Delors Report (cf. 1996) high-lighted the individual responsibilities for education, but it tended to omit references to the obligations of the state. This focus had consequences for adults and lifelong education, which since then has clearly focused on inter-vening with disadvantaged groups and the satisfaction of the demands of the education market (cf. Griffin, 1999a,1999b). In fact, the Delors Report rec-ognised the financial problems of the state and the difficulties in addressing growing social needs. The decision to allocate financial resources to more re-stricted social groups was inevitable. However, recognising the dangers that this option involved, it was argued that these political aims should benefit from a broad democratic debate based on the evaluation of the results of the education system, results which conceivably may not have been exclusively guided by economic criteria. This discussion gave rise to the definition of processes which promoted individual participation in collective life and
fos-tered the (individual) development of the subjects. The role of the state should thus be to ‘represent the community’ and to be the ‘mirror of a plural society’ (Delors et al., 1996).
The state was no longer solely responsible for education. Alongside the special role given to the individual, partnerships with private bodies and civil society also implied less responsibility for the state. State intervention in-volved establishing framework educational options and ways of regulating the education system. Since education should be seen as an asset, the state could not have a monopoly of the system. For this reason, partnerships would be valued, and experiences and interventions which favoured innovations were to be stimulated. Essentially, the aim was to unleash ‘new energies for education’.
Keyword: The role of the state in LLL
In the field of education, it is important to rise above short-term res-ponses or reforms one after the other that risk being reversed at the next change of government. Long-term planning should be based on in-depth analysis of reality ...
These are the main justifications for the role of the state, as represen-tative of the whole community, in a pluralistic and partnership-based society where education is a lifetime affair. That role relates mainly to the societal choices that set mark on education, but also to the regula-tion of the system as a whole and to promoregula-tion of the value of educa-tion; it must not, however, be exercised as a strict monopoly. It is more a matter of channelling energies, promoting initiatives and providing the conditions in which new synergies can emerge. It is also a matter of insisting on equity and the right to education requires at the very last that access to education should not be denied to certain persons or so-cial groups; more specifically, the state should play a redistributive role, to the benefit of minorities and the underprivileged especially. Gua-ranteeing educational quality moreover implies the establishment of general standards and various monitoring devices
Source: Delors et al., 1996, p. 162
The differences between the Faure and the Delors Reports were related to what Griffin called a certain ‘disenchantment with progress’. They were the result of the crisis of the welfare state, the increase in unemployment, and so-cial inequalities. These differences justified the need for a concept of educa-tion which placed a greater emphasis on learning, for example by favouring the expression LLL. This change reflected the pressures on the state and led
the same author to argue that the social democratic model of education (in the form of LLE) was in danger, not least because the crisis of the welfare state was also the crisis of social democracy, which involved changes in the way education was understood. The state was progressively abandoning its inter-ventionist and redistributive role; it was a coordinator of a market in which it offered certain educational services, while also promoting the commodifica-tion of others. Using regulacommodifica-tion, no longer exclusively in line with the prin-ciples of the democratic-emancipatory model, or even of the modernisation and state control model, the state aimed to promote social justice and equal opportunities (cf. Griffin, 1999a).
For this reason, the state was no longer the only body which promoted initiatives. This was a function that was shared with individuals and with pri-vate and civil society institutions. The planning effort, which defined a poli-cy, thus became less relevant. The strategy now dominated political dis-courses, involving the definition of procedures and processes for adopting, implementing, and assessing political options. Likewise, autonomy (individu-al and of non-state organisations) and decentr(individu-alisation were emphasised. The intervention of several actors was supervised by the state, which was respon-sible for ensuring the coherence and long-term character of the policies adopted. Therefore, in spite of insisting on some aspects which alluded to a social democratic and progressivist approach to education policy, UNESCO sought to ‘balance the weight of the market and the weight of the state’ (Grif-fin 1999a, p. 334). In this light, it placed an emphasis on concerns with eco-nomic development, granting forms of education for competitiveness, such as LLL, a new-found leading position, in line with the human resources man-agement model.