Lifelong Education

From international studies, we know that lifelong education is a priority in the education policies of all industrialised countries. Everybody agrees that the rapid changes taking place in society, the economy and working life entail that we translate the principle of lifelong learning into practice on the level of the individual, the organisation and society.

Evaluations of how the principle has been realised in practice are not too encouraging. Despite the stated objectives and targets, the principle of lifelong learning does not work well in any country. Experiences in different countries show that there are many structural, economic and attitude obstacles to lifelong learning strategies.

It is true that many business enterprises have carried out effective human resource development for a long time. In modern and thriving companies, human resource development forms an inherent part of corporate development. For these enterprises human resources development is a success factor - and a question of culture.

But there are also work communities - both public and private - where staff development training is seen as a necessary evil, something that they have to do to avoid impending catastrophes. Staff development and training are naturally needed for this purpose as well, it is true, but then it is only a question of passive reaction to a looming critical situation, not of building a learning organisation to assure a successful future. Both in Finland and elsewhere, too few private and public employers are committed to realising lifelong learning for their personnel.

Education, training and learning constitute an important means of developing human resources. One serious problem in terms of lifelong learning is the uneven distribution of educational demand, and thereby educational services, among different personnel groups. It is an international trend that those who already have a good education get more training, while the less educated are more and more disadvantaged in this respect. Finding ways to break this polarisation is an important challenge to international education policy, to corporate management and to personnel.

On the national level, the principle of lifelong learning entails renewal in education policy. This means that we must renounce sectoral thinking and look upon the education system as a whole composed of mutually complementary parts. Public and private education, formal and non-formal education, they all form a network which should create a basis for translating lifelong learning into practice. Every component in this network is important, none of them can replace others.

This is why the strategy of lifelong learning highlights the role of partnerships. To be successful, the network model requires that we endorse partnerships, cooperation between different parties, in which each partner has a specific role. Each has a role which relates to the educational objectives, needs, expertise and financial responsibility of the other partner.

As I see it, partnership is what the theme of this conference is all about. The groundwork on which personal renewal rests is a high-standard basic education ending in degrees and diplomas; this is provided by the formal education system and it is the responsibility of educational authorities.

Also on this forum I would like to stress the importance of basic education in the lifelong learning strategy. When people were physically crippled in an agrarian or industrial society, their ability to earn a living declined significantly. In an information society, attitudes to learning are essential.

If basic education provides an unpleasant experience of leaning and thereby reduces the motivation to learn, the effect in a knowledge society is as crippling as that of losing a limb in an industrial society. That is why positive learning experiences are crucial, they keep people from becoming crippled in an information society.

On the other hand, job-related staff development training is just as clearly the responsibility of employers. While noting this overall division of responsibilities, we must add that success in each of these roles entails the active contribution of other partners. For the system to work as a whole, it is by no means insignificant what other partners do and how they take care of their own roles.

There is no high-standard initial education and training without the expertise of the world of work, nor high standard staff development training without the contribution of the education system. In my opinion, the partners should be able to see the whole, to commit themselves to the common strategy, and to act accordingly in practice.

The accelerating changes in working life make it difficult to pinpoint education policy and to design subtle, comprehensive programmes. A highly-trained work force is in growing demand in all sectors, but the qualifications they must have keep changing.

In addition to concrete skills, which in themselves are increasingly difficult to anticipate, the work force must have general knowledge and social skills which enable them to work in changing occupational situations and organisations. In this light, efficient and practical, but narrowly qualifying training no longer provides a sufficient basis for demanding occupational tasks. On the other hand, knowledge and skills gained even in high-standard general education also seem inadequate alone.

What we need now are models which combine general qualifications with practically oriented skills training. To achieve this, we must create more efficient forms of cooperation between vocational institutions and industry, especially small and medium-sized enterprises.

With regard to educational authorities, this new approach requires not only a new way of thinking, but also that they renounce thinking centered on the education system. The idea in the old model was that it is possible to assure quality with more of the same, that is, by expanding formal education and training. This approach has, however, run its course.

The education system must guarantee effective education of high quality on which lifelong learning and personal renewal can be built. But giving longer education and training in adolescence in no longer seen as the right solution. We have been excessively committed to institutional training at the expense of the more flexible and efficient system of adult education. Similarly, resource allocation has been unbalanced.

It is not enough that we stress education, we must stress high-quality education. The developed countries which have an unfailing confidence in the role of education are already threatened by educational inflation. The "currency" acquired through education and training cannot always be exchanged into real property, for instance, a job or social advancement. The unemployed in western Europe are a living proof of this. If we cannot create an effective system of continuing education which gives response to changes, we are faced not only with unemployment, but also with shortages of trained labour force in rapidly changing fields.

Nevertheless, the strategy of lifelong learning will not be realised with mere systems - thinking, nor do partnerships only concern organisations. At its best, an efficient education system only provides vital facilities for learning. The most important partners in all development and training are employees and students themselves. In the final analysis, it is their values, attitudes and motivation which decide the outcome.

The employee must see self-enhancement as both intellectually and economically worthwhile. One particularly great problem employees have felt in this is that additional qualifications have no impact on their career development, work, job status or salary. It is particularly important to develop both economic and other incentives which make self-enhancement worthwhile and desirable.

I think we should not let lifelong learning remain a mere political slogan with no practical content. It is difficult for me to think of any other education policy alternative which could prepare us for future developments and unpredictability. The question is not whether we can afford to implement the strategy of lifelong learning, but whether we can afford not to do it. The two foremost providers of lifelong learning are the education system and employers. For both, the key challenge is "Personal Renewal," the theme you are discussing at your conference. What we need now is the commitment of all the parties involved.