The neoliberal perspective focuses on the individual and promotes minimal state intervention. Therefore, the problems and solutions related to lifelong learning are envisioned as residing within the individual. Positioned as the main beneficiary of LLL, the learner is seen as responsible in several different respects.
Engaging and Planning
One way in which the discourse holds the learner responsible is in engaging in and appropriately planning for lifelong learning. The learner is expected to diagnose his or her own learning needs, the future needs of the labour market, formulate goals, obtain resources and engage in his or her own learning. Simons and Masschelein (2008) refer to this as the “responsibilization of learning.” An orientation has developed toward personal development that “…places the burden of change and adaptation entirely on individual workers (Butterwick & Benjamin, 2006,p. 75). These responsibilities are not optional. Sultana refers to it as a moral imperative. Biesta (2006) argues that what was once an individualized right has now been constructed as a duty and that people are increasingly spending more time and money in different forms of learning in order to be more productive at work or to be more marketable.
The shift from the social citizen to the entrepreneur of the self means not only that individuals accept responsibility for their learning, but also that they accept associated risk. As the needs of employers change, you must adapt and learn or you risk unemployment (Olssen, 2008). As one invests in oneself by engaging in lifelong learning, one may obtain skills or knowledge that aren’t marketable or are short-lived in the rapidly changing market of labour. Additionally, at work, learners may experience internal conflict as they are called upon to share and demonstrate their valued knowledge. In sharing, however, the worker loses the competitive edge that this educational capital granted them in a market of labour (Boreham, 2006). Where companies are downsizing their labour force, knowledge capital may be a distinguishing feature that keeps one from being let go. It may also label the individual as too expensive a commodity to retain. Learners accept the risk that their learning may not bring them advantage.
Financing
Questions of responsibility include questions of financing and in recent years, the OECD and WB have done several studies on it (Schuetze, 2008). LLL reflects an expansion of learning and education systems that will require additional financing. Two general approaches are:
· The party that benefits pays,
· The party that can pay, pays (Schuetze).
The OECD prefers the former scheme proposing that a) costs should be shared; b) cost-sharing should relate to relative benefit, and c) financing schemes should mobilize investment by all parties (Schuetze). “The contemporary discourse constructs education as a commodified private good for which individuals should pay” (Bagnall, 2000, p. 20). But the relationship between stake holders (individuals, collectives, the state, industry) is complicated and it is difficult to assign relative benefit. For instance, as educational attainment increases, so does Gross Domestic Product. Additionally, benefits to education go beyond the economic. LLL can be argued to contribute to democracy and active political participation; to health and happiness; to social cohesion, crime reduction, and environmental protection. Each of these outcomes has benefit for all stakeholders. How can cost be shared proportionate to benefit if relative benefit cannot be quantified?
Olssen (2008) foreshadows an increasing shift in financing toward the individual. Indeed, the world bank (2003) sees the primary benefit and responsibility lying with the individual. They claim that if LLL is to be available to all: a) learners should finance their own learning; b) governments should promote equity; c) financing schemes should promote efficiency. Society benefits “…indirectly from the productive engagement of the individual in the enlightened pursuit of his or her interests” (Bagnall, 2000, p. 24), which apparently relinquishes society from financial responsibility. The role of the state is limited to regulation and the provision of basic skills.
…individuals or organizations are seen as the primary beneficiaries—through their enhanced or maintained capacity to profit within the changing cultural context. …State support for education, thus tends to be seen ideally as limited to areas of welfare support, basic skills development, socialization, rehabilitation, and public education….The state’s role in other areas….is seen as being more that of regulation, of standard-setting and of establishing and maintaining frameworks for the recognition and transfer of adaptive learning. (Bagnall, 2000, p. 27)
Although these arguments may have superficial validity, critics of the discourse have pointed out some problems. Schuetze (2008) argues that banks may not be willing to lend the money required to engage in continuing learning. Additionally, those who have known economic hardship (and one might suspect as having the most to gain from LLL) may be risk averse: unwilling to borrow the money or use the time that might otherwise be spent earning a living. Instead of addressing the financial barriers to participation, those who do not have the financial resources to engage in LLL are villainized and are left to suffer the consequences of their decision.
By focusing on the individual’s responsibility in financing and in other respects, the state is allowed to abandon its obligations to provide LLL for all. LLL is less seen as a state-assured right, but as a private decision for personal marketability. Usher and Edwards (2007, p. 91) argue that “learning and learners become the focus of policy discourse as much if not sometimes more than structures of provision.” By putting responsibility on the individual, other agencies abandon any obligation to consider the broader contexts affecting economic and social situations. The WB admits that it has not fully explored the implications of LLL. It has been concerned only with individual elements and are not interested in the overall contexts of work, structures and the connections between various elements (Rivera, 2008).
There is also an irony in the discourse of individual risk and responsibility. As discussed above, LLL is being framed as a moral responsibility to the economy, to the state and to the organizations that employ. Those who do not participate are cast as lesser citizens. The discourse also encourages a will to learn and the development of motivation to engage in LLL. If LLL is a duty to the economy and the state, how can it be argued that the individual is the primary beneficiary? Similarly, if the learner is the chief beneficiary, why is one who does not engage in LLL villainized and cast as unresponsible? Would learning not be a personal decision undertaken for personal benefit? And finally, why would individuals need to be persuaded and encouraged to engage in LLL if they truly are the chief beneficiaries? It strikes me that those that call for LLL may be those that benefit most from it, hence, the reason they call for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment