The Skills for Life Curriculum - Essay Example

Discuss the effectiveness of government policy in tackling the high levels of adult illiteracy and or lack of numeracy The Skills for Life Core Curriculum arose out of the government’s strategy for improving literacy and numeracy skills for adult learners. This strategy was motivated by the Moser Report of 1999. The Moser report noted that “roughly 20% of adults” which represents at least 7 million, “have more or less severe problems with basic skills” (Paton and Wilkins 2009, 25). The curriculum was implemented in 2001 after a number of years of lobbying by non-government organizations and politicians alike. The Education and Skills Committee of Great Britain’s Parliament’s House of Common identified adult illiteracy and lack of numeracy as among the country’s greatest challenges for the next decade. Although these two areas were not specifically identified, they are deduced from the first two challenges listed. These two challenges are; the need to increase “school success rates so that” at least 60 percent “of 16 year olds achieve the entry-level standard for adult life” and the desire to ensure that by the year 2015, at least 90 percent of the youth remain in education and/or training between the ages of 16 and 19 (Education and Skills 2007, 263). This approach is characteristic of the UK’s government approach to lifelong learning which focuses on “early intervention” and heightening awareness (Morgan and Osborne 2008, 75). The UK primarily approaches the problem by seeking to prevent the increase of future illiterate adults or adults with numeracy deficits. Rather than address the current numbers of illiterate adults and/or adults with numeracy deficits, the focus is on preventing young persons becoming a part of the adult illiteracy and lack of numeracy population later on. The emphasis in the England during the 1990s in particular was on welfare reform and there was “no general political lobby” for lifelong learning (Field and Leicester 2007, 220). Globalization however, gave way to two policy changes. The UK government adopted a response to the globalization by investing significantly in lifelong learning despite the fact that it had previously given it minimal attention in terms of state policies (Jarvis 2008, 52). There was significant attention to lifelong learning policies in the UK during the 1990s. These policies came in response to a combination of economic global activities that emanated from the neo-liberal camps and the socio-economic and political factions in the EU as well as pressures from within the EU where countries had implemented their own lifelong learning policies (Hodgson 2000,3). The National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning was set up and issued its first report in 1997 (Fryer 1997). The report advocated for a lifelong learning culture for everyone recommending a ten tiered strategy calculated to create revolutionary change. The ten tiered policy strategy included, a framework, change in attitudes, broadening achievement and participation, workplace and home community, integration and simplification, partnership, collaboration and planning, information, guidance and advice, targets, standards and new information, technological advancements in communication and broadcast and funding (Fryer 1997). Noticeably, the report by the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning however contains significant reference to “the social needs of the nation” which emphasized by the European call for a need to improve “social inclusion” (Jarvis 2008, 52). The report however, fails to emphasize the significance of personal satisfaction and fulfillment Jarvis 2008, 52). In any event the report resulted in a government policy instrument entitles The Learning Age (Jarvis 2008, 52). The Learning Age has as one of its many goals: Widen participation in and access to learning both in further, higher, adult and community education (including residential provision) and through the UfI…(DfEE 1998). Chapter Five is dedicated to the education of adults and notes that a number of LEAs provide “high quality adult education”(DfEE 1998). LEAs are charged with the responsibility for revising the educational quality for adults in education institutions that they either maintain or assist. A majority of the LEA utilize the self-assessment method which is put together by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). DfEE proposed consultation with FEFC and OFSTED for the purpose of improving their methods of cooperation. DfEe also noted that it would request of the Basic Skills Agency, the FEFC Inspectorate and OSTED that they cooperation with one another and with other including the Training Inspectorate for the purpose of improving adult literacy and numaeracy. This include using the Basic Skills Agency’s Quality Mark as well as benchmarks, performance indicators and targets. It would also include revising teach standards and the manner in which material is used (DfEE 1998). A number of initiatives followed the introduction of The Learning Age with the result that the educational system was and continues to be in a perpetual state of change (Jarvis 2004, 19). However, increasingly the issue of adult literacy and numeracy deficiencies have tended to favour curriculum changes with the emphasis on training and education with a view to improving employability, student retention and completion (Knight and Yorke 2004, 198). In line with this strategy, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Rt. Hon Charles Clarke stated in 2007 that the national strategy for adult literacy and numeracy under the auspices of the Skills for Life program would target job seekers, low-skilled employees, young adults, benefit claimants, prisoners and parolees, people residing in disadvantaged communities and parents and the homeless (Skills for Life 2007, 2-24). The curriculum is built toward improving the chances of employment or the acquisition of higher skills for promotion (Skills for Life 2007). The unfortunate result of focusing on employability and trainability in adult literacy and numeracy skills,is that funding in respect of facilitating adult learning has been consistently reduced so that the lifelong learning is once again constrained. Moreover, non-governmental organizations such as the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education is putting distance between itself from the UK government’s neo-liberal approach which necessarily advocates for employability approaches to education for adult learners (McCuddy, Bosch, Matveev and Morse 2007, 119). Tuckett (2005) who had served as the deputy chair on the committee preparing the Learning for the Twenty-First Century: First Report of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning in 1997 formed NIACE. Through NIACe, Tuckett (2005) called upon the UK government to discontinue its systematic reduction of funding for adult learning (Aldridge and Tuckett 2005). The fact is, adults learners who did not complete school require improvement in their literacy and numeracy skills before they can become the subjects of employability programs. Without basic literacy and numeracy skills they have little or no prospects of successfully benefiting from employability education. Regardless of the trainability and employability focus of the Skills for Life Core Curriculum, it at least provides a method by which adult learners with literacy and numeracy deficits can achieve those skills. If they obtain employment or are promoted in the process, both the country and the individual benefits. The fact is, most adults are only motivated to achieve numeracy and literacy skills in furtherance of employment opportunities. It therefore makes sense that the government should focus funds and subsidies for formulating and implementing lifelong learning curriculums such as Skills for Life with a view to improving the adult’s employability and trainability. Bibliography Aldridge, F. and Tuckett, A. (2005) Better News this Time? The NIACE Survey on Adult Participation in Learning. NAICE. DfEE (1998) “The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain.” Cm 3790 The Stationery Office. Education and Skills, House of Commons, Great Britain Parliament (2007). Sustainable Schools: Are We Building Schools for the Future? Seventh Report. The Stationery Office. Field, J. and Leicester, M. (2007) Lifelong Learning: Education Across the Lifespan. Routledge. Fryer, R. (1997) “Learning for the Twenty-First Century: First Report of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning”. http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/nagcell/index.htm (Retrieved April 25, 2010). Hodgson, A. (2000) Policies, Politics and the Future of Lifelong Learning. Routledge. Jarvis, P. (2008) Democracy, Lifelong Learning and the Learning Society. Routledge. Jarvis, P. (2004) Adult Education and Lifelong Learning: Theory and Practice. Routledge. Knight, P. and Yorke, M/ (2004) Learning, Curriculum and Employability in Higher Education. Routledge McCuddy, M.; Van Den Bosch, H.; Matveev, A. and Morse, K. (2007) The Challenges of Educating People to Lead in a Challenging World. Springer Publications. Morgan-Klien and Osborne, M. (2008) The Concepts and Practices of Lifelong Learning. Routledge. Paton, A. and Wilkins, M. (2009) Teaching Adult ESOL. Open University Press. Skills for Life. (2007) “Skills for Life: The National Strategy for Improving Adult Literacy and Numeracy Skills.” http://rwp.excellencegateway.org.uk/readwriteplus/bank/SfL%20Document.pdf (Retrieved April 25, 2010). Read More