Education-line Home Page

ADULT PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING: CAN WE CHANGE THE PATTERN?

Veronica McGivney

Paper presented at EU Conference at Newcastle University

November, 1996

Research on Lifelong Learning:Implications for Policy and Practice


Note:

This paper is the first, draft version of the document which was later revised and published in:

Coffield, Frank (Ed) (1997) A National Strategy For LLL, Department of Education, University of Newcastle, ISBN 0 7017 0076 9

Copies of the full Report can be obtained on receipt of a cheque for £20 made out to University of Newcastle from:

Frank Coffield
Dept of Education
Newcastle University NE1 7RU
Tel 0191 222 5652 or 0191 222 6397 (Ansa)
Fax 0191 222 6550


Everybody is talking about lifelong learning which is generally considered to be a very desirable thing. One TEC recently referred to: 'the startling congruity of Lifetime Learning perspectives emerging from diverse sources which indicates weighty support for the concept.' However, is does the concept amount to anything or is it just a fashionable and alliterative slogan? (Somerset TEC, 1996)

The widespread use of the concept has, at the very least, succeeded in focusing minds on the issue in England and Wales:

The three main political parties have all been considering forms of individual learning accounts so at least they recognise the need for a strategic and policy framework for lifelong learning.

There are initiatives on widening participation underway in the further and higher education sectors and there is increased funding for colleges that attract students from particular post codes in Wales.

The HEFC has commissioned studies on the cost-effectiveness of providing for non traditional learners and the effectiveness of the HEFCE programmes on widening provision and liberal adult education. The council has also circulated proposals for a new funding mechanism that will provide additional weighting for mature students, those with non traditional entry qualifications and part-time students.

Many TECs are currently considering strategies for the development of a lifelong learning culture.

The National Lottery Charity Boards fourth round will be open to bids from voluntary organisations. Themes under the New Opportunities, New Choices Programme include: opportunities for people of all ages to broaden their skills and enjoyment through lifelong learning and improved access to education and training for disabled people.

Adult learners' Week which receives government and European support continues to be very successful. This year 10,000 calls were received by the national telephone helpline, 46% of which were from unemployed people. A national helpline on learning opportunities is currently under consideration at the DFEE.

The Government is piloting new arrangements for people to undertake employment related education and training either full- or part-time while receiving the Job Seekers Allowance.

A new Learning Towns and Cities initiative has been started, supported by the DFEE.

These are all encouraging signs but are we anywhere nearer becoming a lifelong learning culture? For all the words spoken and written about lifelong learning, we are still light years away from achieving it. Let me just point out a few facts:

We are moving towards achievement of the the National Targets at a snail's pace: the improvement in achievement Lifetime Targets 1 and 2 between Autumn 1994 and autumn 1995 was less than 1%.

Qualification levels are lowest among one of the most rapidly growing clusters of the workforce - part-time workers.

A Gallup survey conducted for NIACE earlier this year indicated that about 60% of adults have not been engaged in any formal or informal learning activity during the last three years. The survey findings revealed a depressingly familiar picture:

* The highest participation rates were among the younger adult cohorts and those in socio-economic classes AB and C1; the lowest were among older adults and those in groups C2 (skilled manual) and DE unskilled/unemployed).

* About 60% of those who left school at 18 were current or recent learners but only 20% of those who left school below 16 and 39% of those who left at age 16-17.

* Although the majority of current learners said they were likely to continue learning: 81% of those who had not engaged in learning since leaving school said they were unlikely to participate in the future.(Tuckett and Sargant, 1996)

Analysis of the Gallup findings led to the conclusion that:

'the UK is increasingly two nations: one convinced of the value of learning, participating regularly and planning to do more; the other choosing not to join the learning society'.

The survey confirmed that the key factors involved in participation continue to be length of initial schooling, age and socio-economic status. Another key factor is prior participation: adults who have engaged in learning are always far more likely to continue than those who have not. Taken together the factors that influence participation suggest that participation in post compulsory learning is a continuing rather than a remedial or catching-up activity.

DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION

* LENGTH OF SCHOOLING

* EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

* CURRENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES

* CULTURAL FACTORS: WORK, SOCIAL AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT

* PERCEPTION OF THE VALUE OF EDUCATION

* AWARENESS OF EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

* FAMILIARITY WITH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND PROCESSES

* POSSESSION OF TIME AND AUTONOMY

* POSSESSION OF BASIC, SOCIAL AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS

* ABSENCE OF CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS LACK OF MONEY, TRANSPORT, CHILDCARE.

Some point to recent increases in participation rates as proof that we are making progress. But the statistics can be misleading and suggest more advances than have actually been made. For example, Labour Force surveys indicate gains in the number of employees being trained and this is heralded as a move towards lifelong learning. However, there is no attempt to distinguish between the workers given minimal induction or health and safety training and those offered much longer, more sustained and in-depth development. A recent study using longitudinal data from the National Child Development Study (Blundell, Dearden and Meghir, 1996) reported the familiar finding that: 'more highly educated people have a greater probability of receiving employer-provided training and work-related training leading to a formal vocational qualification.'

Statistics from higher education also give a misleading picture. Although there have been increases in the participation of mature students, women and ethnic minority adults, the expansion has largely been in middle-class participation - in other words, more of the same.

Let us also consider the case of women. It is widely believed that because their numbers have increased dramatically in further and higher education and in the labour force, there is no longer a problem. Wrong! There are still substantial obstacles which prevent women disadvantaged by race, poverty or family situation from gaining access to any form of educational opportunity, particularly now that informal access points are dwindling. In addition, women still face discrimination in access to employer-provided training: the anaysis of data from the Child Development Study found that in the last decade men 'have had a substantially higher probability than women of undertaking employer provided training and work-related training leading to a formal vocational qualfication' (Blundell, Dearden and Meghir, 1996).

Some groups of men also miss out. Unemployed men and male manual workers are particularly under-represented across the range of post compulsory education and training opportunities, as are certain other groups:

* People with literacy and numeracy problems

* People without qualifications

* ethnic and linguistic monorities

* Older adults (aged 55+)

* People with special needs and disabilities

* Ex offenders

In other words, those who ostensibly have the greatest need participate the least. Thus, as my colleague Tony Uden (1996) has pointed out, Lifelong Learning and Widening Participation are not the same thing and 'it is possible to increase participation without meaningfully widening it'. Although there have been some increases in participation, the overall profile of adult learners in all sectors remains largely unchanged. This is at odds with the somewhat complacent view that inequalities of access have been largely ironed out and it is certainly not conducive to the establishment of a lifelong learning culture.

WHY DOES THIS PATTERN PERSIST?

In my opinion it is not at all surprising. Participation in education has to compete with paid and domestic work, family, friends, shopping, hobbies, sports, travel, holidays, TV, cinema,visits to the pub and other communal places and sleep. Therefore it has to be seen to have significant personal pay offs to justify expenditure of time, effort and money. It has to be perceived as accessible, enjoyable and beneficial. Talking about lifelong learning and telling people they should be reposnsible for their own development is not enough.

It is well established that a number of interacting factors combine in causing non participation. These will be very familiar to you but they are still very pertinent:

Structural obstacles

The structural obstacles to participation are still very numerous and, in some respects, increasing. First, there are still very wide geographical differences in provision for adults. Some areas are well endowed and others not. Provision of information and advice is also extremely diverse and patchy.

In some areas there may be few factors that actually encourage learning. This has been called the 'learning press': the existence, in a person's working, residential or general social environment of organisations and facilities that actively encourage learning. Some areas (such as large residential estates) have very limited facilities and amenities, have a bleak physical lay-out that discourages communal or group activities and are not safe to move around in after dark.

Then there are the constraints imposed by the education and training system. We all know that the formal education system selects or excludes people in a number of ways: through entry or eligibility procedures; through lack of access points; through the curriculum; through high fee levels and lack of financial support for learners; through the ways in which programmes are presented and organised; through the general institutional ethos and ambience; through publicity using acronyms, educational jargon and references to assessment; through lack of support for non traditional learners.

Though lifelong learning is a much wider concept than formal courses delivered in dedicated buildings, that is how learning is still largely perceived and presented by the majority of the populace. There is still a mystique of unfamilarity and remoteness surrounding further and higher education, for example, education which makes people feel alienated from them.

Because colleges traditionally had focused mainly on the 16-19 cohort many have developed unconscious practices and signs indicating that they are still geared to younger learners. These are quickly picked up by adults. Similarly, some universities have done little to indicate that they are not predominantly preoccupied with school leavers, full-time study and professional elites. No matter how accessible institutions claim to be, they will not recruit non traditional learners if their 'body language' contradicts their words.

Recent policy shifts have accentuated rathed than diminished the structural barriers to participation: the prioritisation, in funding terms, of vocational and accredited adult programmes has led simultaneously to the exclusion of groups who are not ready or sufficiently confident to undertake such programmes, and to a reduction in the number of affordable return-to-learn opportunities for them. Informal, community-based programmes which facilitate people's passage back into education and training are not a funding priority and are becoming an endangered species as a result of the difficulty of obtaining core finance.

Material barriers

Practical obstacles related to time, money, caring reponsibilities and transport are the those most cited in surveys. They are also the most obvious and easily understood and are therefore often act as 'face-savers' which mask other reasons such as fear of education and anxiety about ability to learn. For this reason, the removal of barriers of finance, transport and childcare tends to bring in the would-be learners, those who are ready and prepared to learn, rather than the non traditional learners who are deterred by more deep-seated psychological and cultural barriers that are not so easily removed.

Lack of interest

Lack of interest is also frequently cited as a major reason for not engaging in learning and this is often used to justify lack of institutional action. However, once again this frequently camouflages suspicion and fear of education and lack of confidence in ability to learn. Lack of confidence plays a significant role in limiting participation in learning. In a recent basic skills at work project targeted at manual staff at Oxford Brookes University, workers typically said things like:

'I felt I was never good enough';

'I don't feel bright enough'.

'I would like to do something but I'm frightened.' (Oxford Basic Skills Unit, 1995)

Because of such feelings, many people shun anything with the word 'education' attached. They feel intimidated by formal educational insitutions which are perceived as inappropriate for adults, while many think they are too old to learn and undervalue their existing experience, abilities and skills. Much of this is to do with earlier experiences and people's perception of where they 'fit' in the social structure.

Socio-cultural barriers

Patterns of adult learning reflect class divisions in society and the different expectations and perceptions resulting from those divisions. Factors such as social class, gender and race impact on decisions to learn as each is associated with particular cultural pressures and norms. Peer and reference group influences can be extremely strong. (These are not the same: peer groups are those with the same characteristics while reference groups are the groups with whom we mainly interact in our social and working life). People who are habitual learners tend to belong to groups where education is seen as a normal activity. They also tend to be involved in other forms of social participation. Non learners belong to groups for whom engaging in learning (particularly if it is not job related) is not part of normal behaviour.

Among male manual workers, for example, there is a strong culture of group conformity and solidarity. At times of mass redundancy attempts to involve such groups in education programmes often founder in the face of the reluctance of workers to be seen engaging in any learning that is not strongly work-related or which has a monetary allowance attached that allows saving of face. To engage in education that is not immediately job-related is seen as what women or children do and is therefore not a masculine activity. At the same time there may be strong resistance to training or retraining. People who have been doing unskilled jobs without benefit of training do not see any value in undertaking training while those who have been trained and have subsequently lost their jobs often resist taking other, potentially useless, training. Significantly, where there have been successes in recruiting manual workers it has often been where opportunities have been provided collectively, on a whole-organisation basis and in the workplace, so that there are no perceived hierarchichal divisions and individuals are not perceived as odd or breaking ranks if they engage in learning.

Ambivalent attitudes to education

There are, then, many interdependent reasons why certain groups do not normally engage in organised informal or formal learning and I believe that the general culture of this country, rather than encouraging them, reinforces their their reluctance. I believe that one of the major reasons for the wide cultural division in participation is the profound ambivalence we have as a nation towards education in any form but the purely vocational. This is reflected in the contradictions inherent in policy and the language of policy makers:

1. Amid all the rhetoric about lifelong learning we have a persisting anti-intellectual culture as desmonstrated by the de[ressing regularity with which politicians and the press snipe regularly at teachers, academics, intellectuals and 'trendy' student-centred approaches - scapegoating them, together with the 1960s and single mothers, as the cause of all our economic and social ills. Where are the national role models to demonstrate the benefits of learning? Open university degrees are now associated less with working-class Ritas than with mass murderers, and we have a Prime Minister who felt able to boast, a few years ago, that he had reached that office without benefit of O-levels. If we who are in the educational world fail to make sense of these mixed messages how can we expect traditional non learners to do so?

2. Politicians and industrial representatives repeatedly complain about low skill and educational levels and how this reduces our economic competitiveness. Although the blame for this is usually attributed to teachers, the resourcing of state schools has been drastically reduced resulting in a constant haemorrhage of experienced teachers.

3. We have Lifetime Targets which aim 'to raise standards and attainment levels in education and training to world class levels' but which are, bafflingly, restricted the 'workforce' defined as those currently in work. They exclude the unregistered unemployed, those whose work is casual and intermittent and women who have left the labour force for family reasons although women are expected to provide over 80% of labour market entrants and re-entrants in the foreseeable future. There are no targets for people with literacy problems (estimated at one in six of the adult population) and none for traditionally non participating groups.

4. While we are repeatedly told that Britain needs a more highly skilled workforce, we are simultaneously told that we need a highly deregulated, casualised labour market which competes on the basis of low labour costs! In such a labour market fewer people will need higher level skills and there is strong evidence that employers are less prepared to train people in lower grade casual or part-time jobs.

5. To encourage people to take responsibility for their own development tax incentives have been introduced for people undertaking national vocational qualifications. This does not help people who do not pay tax. There are no tax incentives for people wanting to enhance their general skills although employers frequently say that they value communication skills and general skills more than qualifications. Moreover, the little known and relatively under-used tax incentive is completely outweighed by a raft of structural deterrents which prevent far more people from engaging in learning, for example:

* the lack of financial help for part-time students and flexible learners;

* the restriction of student loans to people under 50;

* the successive cuts in TECs' training budgets;

* the increasingly widespread method of funding according to results which rewards providers who take 'successful' students and penalises them if they take applicants who need more help and take longer to achieve;

* restrictions on the time unemployed people can spend learning and conflicting interpretations of this rule;

* Abolition of the additional financial help for mature full-time students in higher education;

* Reductions in funding for higher education, as a result of which some institutions are considering top-up fees which will inevitably restrict non traditional student access.

* The fixing of college Access funds for 1996-97 at a lower rate than they were in 1995-96 despite evidence of mature student financial hardship.

Despite the Lifelong Learning agenda, therefore, some aspects of recent policy actually militate against the participation of non traditional learners. The context in every sector is more for less. In such a climate, providers have to put funder needs before learner needs and provision is organised to maximise income and keep costs down. In such a climate there is little support for development work with under-represented groups and, as a result, outreach work tends to be marginal and poorly resourced. The response from colleges to criticisms from the FEFC Chief Inspector recently was that 'targets can only be met by offering courses for which there is a demonstrable market'.

The market approach obviously leads to an imbalance both in the type of programmes offered and in the nature of participation. The different funding arrangements for Schedules 1 and 2 provision has led to a situation whereby local education authorities providers must try and recoup the costs of provision from the learners. To do this, they need to provide programmes that will attract participants willing and able to pay the fees.

Although there is some special funding available for disadvantaged groups from City Challenge, Single Regeneration Budgets and from Europe, special project funding is finite and usually offered on a year to year basis. There is even pressure on disadvantaged communities to compete between themselves for special funding. Moreoever as it is difficult to get specially funded programmes embedded in institutional funding arrangements, there is rarely any long-term impact on the overall learner profile.

The pattern of participation is unlikely to change while these contradictions exist. Nor will it change as long as the vision of lifelong learning remains so blinkered.

Why do most national and European papers on lifelong learning put most emphasis on those under the age of 18?

Why are all the national learning initiatives and campaigns largely about the workforce and vocational learning?

Why do official papers on lifelong learning make token references to things like the enrichment of life but go on at length about skills for work?

The current stress in lifelong learning papers on work skills leaves out large chunks of the population. What about the increasing number of older and retired people in the population? Although there is evidence that learning has a strongly positive effect on older people's health, well-being and activity levels, the signs are that older adults now have access to fewer opportunities than before. Take the European White Paper 'Towards the Learning Society'. Although the concept of lifelong learning is strongly supported, the paper pays scant attention to demographic changes and the increasing proportion of people over retirement age (most of whom will be women). The emphasis is on skills for employment rather than on learning to assist people in all aspects of their lives. Moreover, virtually all the proposals for change are aimed at the initial education and training periods of life while the needs of adult learners are given scant attention (Waddington, 1996).

Given this context, it is not surprising that we have made so little progress towards achieving a national shift towards a lifelong learning culture.

CHANGING THE PATTERN

Things don't change just by wishing them to change but only by concerted action. We do not need any more research on how to reach non traditional learners. We know that it can be done and how it can be done. Since the 1970s there have been countless examples of innovative programmes for manual workers, people with literacy needs, women, the unemployed, different ethnic goups etc. that have demonstrated that investment in sensitive outreach, recruitment, delivery curricular and learner support strategies can bring in people from non participating groups. With the exception of the literacy movement, many of these have unfortunately foundered through lack of contunuing financial support.

Every so often there's a flurry of anxiety about imbalances in participation. Committees and enquiries are set up just as is happening now. These are very well intentioned and often commission research which predictably finds out what has already been known for years: that it is not enough just to put on a course and then advertise it; there has to be investment in the pre access stage, in sensitive outreach and group targeting strategies, to reach those who lack the education, the confidence or the means to take advantage of existing opportunities. There also has to be attention to delivery, timing, the learning environment and support structures such as help with fees, trabsport and childcare to suit non traditional learners. Pump-priming funds are then made available and a number of new schemes with these features are set up explicitly to attract new groups. These may be very successful but many again turn out to be short-lived because after the pump-priming period is over, they are deemed too costly to continue. Thus the same cyclical process has been reenacted: a few people have benefited but there has been little change in the overall situation. A lot of energy and time has been expended on 'one-offs' and less on building on and developing established work.

There are still, fortunately, some excellent initiatives and schemes around for non traditional learners. To cite only a few diverse examples:

* Unison's comprehensive return to learn scheme for members which has brought in many non traditional learners.

* Pecket Well College for adults with literacy needs and disabilities;

* The Women's Electronic Village Hall in Manchester;

* In-house employee development schemes. An investigation of over 450 schemes indicated that a large proportion of participants are unskilled or semi- skilled workers who left school at 16 or earlier (DFEE, 1996).

* The Inn-Tuition scheme in Leeds involving college taster programmes in five local pubs, financed by EYLL and a local brewery. The organisers were also planning to set up courses and a creche for mothers on a local estate.

* The 'Activate' Programme for new adult learners at Walsall College of Arts and Technology which is planned to run in a large working men's club.

* East Leeds family Centre which has brought free part-time courses to 1,500 people, most of them non traditional learners, as a result of a concerted effort by City Council, TECS, local colleges and schools.

* South Bristol College's Learning Minibus which takes information to outlying estates, and invites people to have a go on the computers on board

* Rycote College's Cut, Advice and Blow Dry Project which uses hair stylists to disseminate learning information.

The characteristics many of these schemes have in common is a targeted approach. It is much easier to target groups than individuals. They have also recognised that conventional publicity such as prospectuses and brochures does not work with non traditional learners. Information has to be put across in a form people can use and relate to. People do not notice or absorb information that does not accord with their lifestyle and current preoccupations. Information has to be specially designed and dissimenated for different groups. That is why during Adult Learners' Week information about information hotlines is enclosed with unemployed people's Giro cheques.

They are also characterised by diversity: lifelong learning does not just involve formal, course-based and institution-based learning but can take a variety of forms in a variety of settings. They show that learning opportunities and information about learning opportunities need to be taken to where people are.

Most importantly, they are characterised by collaborative partnerships between different agencies. As Gillian Shepherd said in her speech to launch Adult Learners' Week earlier this year: 'achieving cultural change is not for governments alone. It depends on the sustained actions of many.' That is true. But changing the pattern of participation on a national scale requires more than a cluster of diverse inititiatives in different parts of the country. Without political will, commitment and adequate finance, we will never achieve the real culture change necessary to change participation. We will continue to fiddle around on the edges with bits of short-term special funding, helping a few people to get in here and there, but not altering the overall profile of adult learners.

CONCLUSION

My shopping list for changing the culture would be:

1) Funding steers

Central funding steers are an important means of changing participation patterns. We cannott concentrate on one stratum of society just because they're easier to reach and cheaper to teach. Non traditional learners are more likely:

* to have poor previous educational experience

* to be under social or economic pressure

* to lack confidence in their ability to learn

* to have low expectations

* not to see the relevance of educational offers.

They therefore require investment in:

* recruitment strategies

* flexible course planning and delivery to suit different circumstances

* good initial guidance and support

* personal support (e.g. finance, childcare, benefit advice)

* learning support (e.g. help with study skills).

Funding systems are required which encourage collaboration rather than competition and which reward rather than than penalise institutions which make special efforts to recruit and retain under-participating groups. This should be core rather than special funding.

2) More equitable funding of students in different learning modes and more financial help for essential support such as child care and more secure funding for voluntary organisations.

All the evidence suggests that an initial investment will pay off since, once new learners have experienced learning as something fulfilling and enjoyable, the chances are that many will wish to continue even in their own time and at their own expense. The key to continuation in learning is to give people a good experience of learning. Recent participation is one of the most important predictors of the likelihood to engage in learning in the future. Two thirds of unemployed college students in a recent NIACE survey (Thomson, 1996) said that the course they had attended made them more likely to continue learning in the future.

I have found over and over again that free return to learn courses with support such as childcare attract participants who had not previously engaged in any post school learning. People are understandably unwilling to invest money in something unknown, untried and initially frightening. Significantly, once involved, many become so enthusiastic and motivated that a number are then willing to pay some of the costs of attending other courses.

3) An end to the arbitrary division between Schedule 1 and 2 and the continuing stress on narrow employment skills. If we want to achieve higher participation rates then we have to accept that learning needs to be geared to people's interests and aspirations rather than those of politicians or employers. If we wish to develop a lifetime learning culture then general education, education for living, as well as vocationally relevant learning must be seen as equally worthy of support. Improving workforce skills is not the only goal of learning. The starting point of the Unesco call for dialogue and debate in preparation for the Fifth International Conference on Adult Education (to be held in 1997) is that: 'learning throughout life cannot be uni-dimensional: a balance has to be found between work, social and community life and personal development so that people can learn to know, to do, to live together, to be, to become and to create a synergy between all these experiences.'

This is not to say that work related learning should not be strongly supported but that other forms of learning to assist people in the various other aspects of their lives should also be recognised and supported. We cannot afford to dismiss learning that is not work related as intrinsically less useful. Education to help people make creative use of leisure time can enhance life for many groups in our society who are materially and culturally disadvantaged. It is particularly significant at a time when we have an ageing population. It is not money down the drain if people are helped to develop themselves and gain general education skills. On the other hand, we shouldn't be too pious in our attitudes to vocational education. It does not compromise educational values if programmes aim to prepare people for employment by giving them marketable skills. There is a need and room for both and they should not be mutually exclusive. We need a more fluid and accessible system in which the artificial distinctions and polarities are broken down.

5. Some form of legislation to encourage employers to offer training and development opportunities to all their employees. It is clear that many businesses will not, of their own volition, take more responsibility for training. According to one report (Independent on Sunday, 1996), 79% of companies say they regard training as a priority but only 8% set aside any budget for it.

6. Amendment of the Education and Training targets so that they include not just the current workforce but all those who intend or wish to work, people who are disadvantaged in their access to learning opportunities and those who have come to an end of working life but who wish to remain physically and mentally active.

7. Greater local coordination of opportunities

8. Greater attention to lifetime learning and the role of learning in TV.

TV can make a huge contribution to changing cultural patterns. By presenting special programmes and role models it could encourage more people to believe that learning is not for other people but also for them. The BBC's Second Chance campaigns during Adult learners Weeks demonstrate that it is possible to change people's behaviour by using short comic programmes with recognisable personalities. It is unfortunate that as a result of the 1991 Broadcasting Act education lost access to prime time TV (Tucket 1996).

In short, to change participation patterns requires concerted and coordinated strategies by policy-makers, providers and a range of national and local organisations working in partnership. We know that increasing and widening participation is initially cost-intensive but the returns to the individual, the community, the economy - if they could be costed - must surely outweigh this.

Veronica McGivney, NIACE

24 November, 1996

REFERENCES

Blundell, R, Dearden, L, Meghir, C, 1996, 'Determinants of Effects of Work Related Training in Britain', Institute for Fiscal Studies, (an ESRC Research Centre)

DFEE, 1996, 'Employee Development Schemes: what impact do they have?'

Independent on Sunday, 1996, 1996, Report on findings of the Lloyds Bank Small Business Research Trust, 24 March

Oxford Basic Skills Unit, 1995, Report on Training Analysis undertaken for the Residential Services Department, Oxford Brookes University

Somerset TEC, 1996, 'Lifetime Learning: a strategy', March.

Thomson, A, 1996, The Effects of the 21 Hour Rule, unpublished, NIACE

Tucket, A, TES, 25th October 1996

Tuckett A, Sargant, S, 1996, 'Creating Two Nations? Headline findings on lifelong learning from the NIACE/Gallup Survey 1996', NIACE, Leicester

Uden, T, 1996, 'Widening Participation: routes to a learning society' a policy discussion paper, NIACE, Leicester

Unesco, 1996, Fifth International Conference on Adult Education, Julu 1997: call for dialogue to prepare the projects (sic) of a declaration and an agenda for the future.

Waddington, S, 1996, The European White paper and Women's Education and Training, Adults Learning, V,8, No,2, October pp33-34

This document was added to the Education-line database 04 January 1998