The School, The Community and Lifelong Learning

Citation

Brennan, B. (1999), "The School, The Community and Lifelong Learning", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 219-221. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.1999.37.2.219.1

The terms lifelong education′′ and lifelong learning′′ have been promoted in the literature for several decades. The concepts have been espoused enthusiastically and optimistically by agencies such as UNESCO and authors such as Faure et al. (1972), Dave (1976) and Cropley (1977). There were also critics, e.g. Gelpi (1979). The result has been that lifelong education has been widely co‐opted into educational systems with little impact on the operations of the systems.

In the 1990s there has been a revisiting of the concepts of lifelong education and lifelong learning. Internationally, UNESCO has again been active through conferences and publications, e.g. Learning: The Treasure Within (Delors, 1997). The report indicates a greater awareness than in earlier publications of the problems and difficulties in implementing lifelong learning.

A major difference from the earlier period is that in the 1990s, governments have embraced phrases such as lifelong learning′′ and lifelong education′′ in the vocabulary of their policy statements, usually under the heading of the learning society′′. The Blair Government in the UK has produced its Green Paper, The Learning Age (1998). In Australia the National Policy Adult Community Education (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 1997) affirms the increasing importance of:

1. 1.

   fostering a culture of learning in Australian society and organisations; and

2. 2.

   collaborating with all education and training sectors within a context of lifelong learning′′ (p. 4).

The major policy focus for the development of the proposed learning society is through the existing educational and training providers.

In summary, the twin concepts of lifelong learning/education have been accepted and advocated for many years. The educational rather than the learning version has been preferred: the process of making the concepts operationally effective in educational providers has been limited but the new factor in the situation is that governments have begun to use the terms in their policy statements. It is within this historical and contemporary context that Chapman and Aspin have presented their 337 page volume.

The contribution of the volume under review is that it accepts the realities of the problems of the implementation of lifelong learning through a major educational provider, the school, explores the difficulties of implementation and accepts that the recognition of lifelong learning within the school as an institution will require a major re‐orientation of the school.

The book is organised into four parts. The first part, entitled The Concern and the Concept′′, adopts an international and historical approach. One of the features of this volume is that although there is a focus on Australia there is a wide sweep of literature in the analysis of the definitional and conceptual foundations of the study.

The second part, The Policy Context′′, is the largest section of the volume. The focus here is the school, as the title of the volume suggests. However, there is a major, and effective, attempt to revisit the traditional terms of schooling ‐‐ curriculum, teaching, learning, goals and standards and system management ‐‐ in a manner that realises and addresses the nature of lifelong learning and its impact on the school and schooling.

In the third part, the emphasis is on a major feature of the school in a lifelong education context. The part is entitled Lifelong Learning through School and Community′′ and deals with the sorts of relationships that the school needs to cultivate with its lifelong learning partners in order that lifelong learning has some chance of being successful, i.e. as a policy in operation. The partners are: families and communities; business, industry and commerce; culture and the arts; among other schools and other providers of learning. This part makes use of a number of key terms to describe how a learning system of collaboration and co‐operation can be developed, i.e. by connecting′′, establishing relationships with...′′, cultivating connections′′ and forging partnerships′′.

The fourth part is headed Conclusions and Recommendations′′ and consists of two chapters: Leading the learning community′′ and Schools as centres for the learning community′′. This part recognises that although learning will go on in the community whether or not governments, or schools, are concerned or have policies, there is a need for leadership and resources to help make the lifelong learning in the whole community more effective and use the range of resources that are becoming available for learning.

The authors focus on the school as a key agency in the development of lifelong learning. However, they accept the value of other agencies and have devoted special attention to exploring how the school as one agency can develop strategies to foster lifelong learning.

Their advocacy provides important insights into means by which the newer advocates of lifelong learning, governments, can provide guidelines and strategies to foster lifelong learning.

The reviewer′s continuing concern, however, is that the sorts of re‐adjustments required will not be possible and that schools, like other educational providers, may offer verbal assent to the principles of lifelong education and continue to behave as agencies for the more limited concept of lifelong education.

Overall, however, Chapman and Aspin have carefully and thoroughly recognised the historical evolution of the key terms and their uses, analysed the contemporary social and political situation and provided a basis by which the school can become a major contributor to the fostering and development of lifelong learning ‐‐ together with a range of partners ‐‐ for the communities and societies they serve.

The challenge now is for other educational providers and resources for learning to explore additional ways by which lifelong learning can be encouraged and supported. Associated with this challenge will be the problem of helping governments deal with the difficult‐to‐manage phenomenon of lifelong learning. Chapman and Aspin′s work will contribute also to this task.