A
well-known economist suggested that ‘our goals are best achieved indirectly’.
This argument captures the nature of social utility when it comes to Informal
Adult and Community Learning: it benefits society in a profound and yet oblique
way. The policymakers stand to lose if they attempt to harness Informal Adult
and Community Learning to serve the employability agenda explicitly.
Back in February this year,
the coalition launched a review of Informal Adult and Community Learning. In
the context of the economic slow-down, and the austerity measures introduced to
trim government spending, it naturally raised some questions: ‘Who should pay
for Informal Adult and Community Learning?’ and ‘What purpose does it serve?’
Regarding the first question,
as a survey conducted by the National Institute of Continuing Adult Education
in 2009 revealed, the taxpayer is rather reluctant to bear the costs: one in
five adults in England believe that there should be no public subsidy at all
for reading, writing, basic maths and basic English courses which currently
attract full government funding. Indeed, the odds are high that, following the
consultation of Informal Adult and Community Learning provision, the coalition
will attempt to keep the public subsidy down. Its intention is to radicalise
the trend set in the Learning Revolution white paper of 2009, namely to
encourage partnerships between the government, private and third sectors as the
main vehicle for the delivery of Informal Adult and Community Learning. It is
hoped that the combination of public, voluntary and private provision will
deliver the best value for the taxpayer’s money while guaranteeing the highest
quality. Some also suggested that improved integration between private and
public sectors might even have the benefit of ensuring a better match between
the skills demand and supply. But is this really the purpose of Informal Adult
and Community Learning?
It would be wrong to think
that public-private partnerships in community training are the panacea to the
current skills gap and shortages. First and foremost, it is wrong because to
look for this kind of outcome from Informal Adult and Community Learning is to
misunderstand the nature of informal and community learning. The primary
purpose here is not to gain qualification and work-related skills. Unlike
certain forms of workplace learning that have the obvious goal of increasing
vocational skills, the purpose of informal learning is to enhance individual
talents and capabilities independently of whatever utility they might have for
one’s professional success. This is not to say that informal learning does not
improve one’s work-readiness. For instance, mastering basic numeracy and
literacy is essential to function in any kind of work environment. Whereas
other forms of informal learning such as book clubs, museum attendance or dance
classes have a much more tenuous connection to one’s ability to ‘survive’ in
modern society, it would be wrong to suggest that there is no utility gain from
pursuing these. Their benefits can be immense – but just like the
much-discussed impact of academic research; not always possible to anticipate,
and often difficult to quantify.
It is not the ‘job’ of
Informal Adult and Community Learning to deliver a specific set of work-related
skills. This does not mean, however, that the government does not have an
obligation to support Informal Adult and Community Learning. To talk of
learning with an intrinsic value might seem like an ‘illicit indulgence’ during
these troubled times, but one should be reminded about the oblique benefits of
Informal Adult and Community Learning. Although not a direct goal, a tangible
side-effect of community learning is greater individual resilience and
community engagement. In other words, a ‘by-product’ of informal community
learning is the kind of human capital that both sides of the political spectrum
recognise as fundamental in building the good or ‘big’ society. For this
reason, the government should support Informal Adult and Community Learning,
and facilitate a platform for community groups, charities, volunteers and
public sector to come together in training delivery. Perhaps the government
should even provide some additional funding through outsourcing fee-paying
courses to the private sector, with the proviso that part of the profit should
be used to cross-subsidise learning for those who cannot afford to pay. As the government
is seeking to sum up the outcome of its consultation, this might still be an
idea worth considering.
This article originally appeared in House Magazine on 28th November 2011