She suggests that the target-driven approach of New Labour is the reason why the British education system fails more than 150.000 school students every year, who leave primary school without understanding even the basics of numeracy.

«The fact that so many pupils aren’t grasping maths is just one symptom of a much deeper problem. There’s a great deal of determined teaching going on in schools, but much less learning. The way lessons are constructed leaves huge numbers of children baffled, disengaged, bored or angry. [...] Education is not about discovery, but the dutiful repetition of precisely what you have been told.»

Russel goes on to observe that

«the problems in schools stem from the conveyor-belt attitude to education. The curriculum and the literacy and numeracy strategies have been developed in the belief that children can be stuffed with a little more information every day, and that this amounts to education.»

She describes that

«lessons are structured so rigidly that teachers must move on to the next topic, regardless of whether it’s been understood. An experienced primary teacher has a despairing analogy for what she feels forced into. “It’s as if a train is leaving the station at the end of every lesson, and every time some of the children are being left behind.”»

According to Russell, the number of NEETS — «teenagers not in education or training» — has not really changed despite millions the government has poured into education:

«[...] there’s been no improvement in literacy or numeracy scores for several years, and half of all children are still leaving school at 16 with no worthwhile qualifications. Truancy has not fallen.»

Russel quotes Geoff Mulgan, a former head of the policy unit at No 10, who says that «schools aren’t developing the abilities people need for their lives or for their work.» She concludes that

«what’s needed is an honest evaluation of the limitations of our target-driven, exam-dominated, box-ticking system, and the development of a much more productive model.»

In a letter to the editor, Professor Michael Bassey from Nottinghamshire observes that

«it is the whole educational experience, not just numeracy, that should concern him [Gordon Brown]. Our young people need much more than the government’s obsession with numeracy and literacy: they also need to learn to be supportive of each other and able to work cooperatively; to develop their intelligence, creativity and other talents to their full potential; to be immersed in the culture of our time and to become proficient in branches of knowledge according to their aptitude and interests; to be adventurous and self-confident; to understand themselves and through all this to be joyful.»

The professor goes on to say:

«This kind of preparation for the future can only come from the humanity, insights, values, culture, empathy and hard work of dedicated teachers working in schools that are free to think about the future, make their own assessments of pupils’ needs and construct their curricula accordingly. If even half the money spent on assessment and inspection instead went on increasing the numbers of teachers and improving the resources of the more challenging schools, so much would be achieved. Accountability should be local, not pseudo-national.»

And he concludes that

«the next education act should free all schools from government interference, release the creativity and insights of their teachers and foster the all-round development of young people.»

Well said, Professor. Thank you.

Dr. Peter Scott from the Centre for New Media, Knowledge Media Institute at the Open University, UK predicts that “the future will show that formal and informal models of learning will start to combine powerfully into a joint strand which is some way between both; something like ‘non-formal’ learning.”

Something like, eh?!

What makes this study so interesting from my humble perspective is that the four regions covered are Latin America, Asia and Pacific, Arab States and Africa. You see Europe here anywhere? Well, I’d say enjoy the change of perspective.

Because what the work of UNESCO and UNLD-LIFE shows (beyond all which it shows anyhow) is how particular and constrictive the European discourse on non-formal education and learning tends to be. It exemplifies some of the issues evolving around non-formal education as a policy in development aid, as a prevention tool, as the only alternative to learning there is.

Surely this perspective brings its own limitations but is very well worth your valuable time!

From the abstract:

“Until recently, education planning tended to disregard the non-formal education sector that most successfully meets the needs of marginalized and vulnerable populations around the world. This report is a first step in showing how national Ministries of Education in four regions (Latin America, Asia and Pacific, the Arab States and Africa) are beginning to create “synergies” with non-formal education providers towards bridging that gap.

In light of the research outcomes, this report has been able to take stock of a broad range of implementation arrangements, concerns and achievements in relation to the synergy between formal and non formal education. Case studies and field experiences highlight models of good practice while reflecting the dynamism, richness and enthusiasm of NFE interventions in different countries.

This report however does not provide any one interpretation of synergy nor does the study claim to be exhaustive. Instead, such relationships are situated against the socio-economic and cultural contexts and challenges facing different population groups.

Challenges are formulated for both streams – the formal and non-formal – to improve the overall conditions for participation in, and relevance of national education systems. In particular, we hope that it will encourage all actors to consider questions such as:

• How can learning within formal education systems take into account the diversity of learning situations, and the urgency of the specific needs of socially excluded communities and individuals, while paying respect to their social practices and cultural traditions?
• How do we ensure representation of the most vulnerable and encourage their participation?
• In what ways are partnership arrangements helpful?
• What are the innovative elements in different types of synergies?
• What may still be missing from the reform process in terms of advancing the broad aims and improving access to education and educational management?

In several countries, the drive to improve the quality of education, within a context of poverty reduction and broader labour markets, has opened the way for a more innovative use of both formal and non formal education and the creation of mechanisms through which they can interact. These developments in thinking can be seen as a response to fundamental labour, social and cultural changes transforming societies around the world.”

Download the publication over at UNESCO’s website (careful, the pdf is 19 MB heavy).

Then I read the report called “Informality and Formality in Learning” and it shook up my world. By giving me a much more differentiated view of what we are trying to do. What Helen Colley and her colleagues from the Lifelong Learning Institute at the University of Leeds make quite clear to me is that we are too anxious to separate the different forms of learning into little boxes. The temptation is obvious: if we put them in boxes then we can easily say one form of learning is better than the other; then we can put up arguments for more resources and funding and recognition.

It is difficult, if not dangerous, to try to summarise the report in this small space and the authors are very careful in framing their conclusions.

Nevertheless, it seems useful to highlight some of the points which made me put my thoughts into question, in the hope that you might go and have a closer look:

1. One of the major findings of the research was that it may well be more sensible to see attributes of informality and formality as present in all learning situations. Attributes can be looked at in four clusters: process; location and setting; purposes; and content.
2. Those attributes and their interrelationships influence the nature and effectiveness of learning. Changing the balance between formal and informal attributes changes the nature of the learning.
3. All forms of learning have the potential to be either emancipatory or oppressive. This depends partly upon the balance and interrelationships between attributes of in/formality. However, the wider contexts in which that learning takes place are crucial in determining its emancipatory potential.

So, we need to look very carefully at the aims of the learning we are encouraging, look at the context and reflect more on the balance between the different attributes present in our planning. The report can help us to analyse what we do and be more explicit about what we are combining – and the authors are currently busy designing an analytical tool to give us further assistance. If we go deeper into this analysis, it helps to see that, for example, when we add attributes of formal learning to non-formal learning (such as certification) we change the nature of the learning.

Even though I have read the report a few times and thought about it a lot, I’m still not completely clear about all of the consequences of looking at different attributes of learning in this way. But it sure is liberating to break open the box I had constructed for myself! Discussing these ideas with a friend as I wrote the draft of this article, we thought it could be helpful to think of learning as a stream. A stream whose flow also depends on the conditions surrounding it. Maybe we can find some nice ways to extend the metaphor in the future… Or, like Bob Dylan, just sit here and watch the river flow.

Read more about the report Mark refers to here at the UK National Guidance Research Forum; or simply download the entire report (660 kb) or its summary (120 kb), both in pdf, directly from our site.

Enjoy discussing!