Adult Learning: the UCU Vision.
Consultative Conference, Birkbeck College, London. April 30, 2009.
A report by Malcolm Ball. ( a participant at the Event)

This was a significant conference, not because it was designed to consider or promote another development of policy in the gradual erosion of critical adult learning. It was a significant conference because it was organised by a trade union with a professional interest in the future of adult learning. It is understandable that the UCU should have concerns about the jobs and conditions of employment of their members. It is also understandable that they should have concerns about the future of adult learning as a critical and unpredictable form of human social activity. The conference was significant because the UCU were opening their internal debates about adult learning to a wider audience. They recognise that adult learning has reached an impasse which requires the engagement of social groups broader than the UCU. The hegemony of instrumentalism presents a formidable barrier.
The opening presentation was by Bob Fryer. His status is cemented to the two excellent but largely ignored (by policy makers) NAGCELL Reports of 1998 and 1999 and his stewardship of The Northern College as its Principal. This was a typical Bob Fryer presentation in its breadth and length well supported by reference to developments over the past fifteen years. He made three big points. Firstly, that the Delores Report remains the best starting place for a consideration of the issue. He considered that the ‘Delores second pillar’ which was ‘learning to do, learning to equip individuals’ to be competent was in retrospect too narrow and instrumentalist. This may be the consequence of political implementation rather than intellectual vision. He would complement the ‘Delores-four pillars’ with a fifth pillar, this is developed by Peter Jarvis (Globalisation, Lifelong Learning and The Learning Society: Sociological Perspectives, 2007). The fifth pillar would be ‘learning to sustain’. It would be learning to enable individuals to sustain themselves and their communities and their society in the context of rising uncertainty and risk. This raised the second point that Raymond Williams has provided the best and most eloquent vision of the reason for adult education. That it should help adults to make sense of the change they live through and experience-help them to understand it. That it should help them to become adaptable-help them to live with it. That it should equip them and encourage them to play their part in shaping change. Individuals can be the authors or agents of change and not its passive victims. The third, and final point, was the question whether neo-liberalism was dead. He noted that national policy was rooted in the  significant transformation of the political landscape originating in the late 1970’s. The growth of the global perspective had covered most human activity and had made the lives of individuals across the globe more directly and indirectly connected. This had been augmented by the integration of national government policies, of different nationalities, but especially the USA and UK, in favour of ‘free trade’ and ‘deregulation’. The global financial crisis of 2007-2009 was rooted in these policies. At the end of the presentation a question from Malcolm Ball (at a seminar two days earlier the respected researcher/writer on employment and learning matters and Co-Director of SKOPE, Ewart Keep had emphasised that the policies of the last thirty years in the area of using learning to bring about social change had not been very successful and that these policies had been built to the backcloth of neo-liberalism which was now seen to have collapsed) invited the speaker to speculate on whether policy makers would recognise or acknowledge that neo-liberalism was (like Monty Python’s parrot) dead or would they seek to reconstruct it? How is this instrumentalist vision built out of neo-liberalism to be challenged? In reply, he appeared to welcome challenges to the narrow instrumentalism and suspected that policy makers were failing to recognise that the landscape was changing.
The second speaker was Tom Schuller, speaking as Director of  IFLL, the independent but NIACE sponsored inquiry in to adult learning. He promised to provide the ‘prosaic bit after the sparkle of Bob Fryer’. The report of the independent inquiry is due to be published in September 2009. He noted that after a promising improvement in some participation between 1995-1999 there had been ten years of continuous decline in participation in adult learning in Scotland, among C2’s generally and among the over 60’. He speculated about the value of  recognising an educational life-course, with four categories (0-25, 26-50, 51-75 and 75 plus). The educational needs in each of these age categories may be expected to be different and they would need to be met by policy. He built on this by arguing for a ‘Citizens’s Curriculum’ which would include four capabilities: (1) Finacial, (2) Health, (3) Digital and (4) Civic.
Dan Taubman (National Officer, UCU) introduced the UCU draft policy document (attached) and invited participants, including those who were not individual members of UCU, to provide their comments. They would be considered in the development of the final policy statement.
The ideas offered by Fryer and Schuller and the draft policy paper from UCU were considered in group discussion. The following summary points were made in the group I was a member of.
1.	The government policy priority on skills and on the under 35’s had seriously damaged the provision and participation in adult learning.
2.	Funded adult earning was a poisoned chalice and professionals should seek to build programmes beyond the reach of state funded provision.
3.	It was a democratic right to have public financial support for non-instrumental or social learning. The case had to be built and campaigned for.
4.	It was understandable that ‘good professionals’ would try to position their organisations favourably for public funding. The problem was that this had been accompanied by acquiescence in the ‘political’ argument. The May 2009 issue of Adult Learning carried a range of responses to the Government Statement on Informal Adult Learning. Only one of the responses did not accept the Government rational for their definitions and their policy. Most of the responses found some small reason for solice.
5.	There was disappointment that NIACE had proved that it was not the voice of adult education.
6.	The proposal for a Citizen’s Curriculum, as outlined by Tom Schuller, appeared to be influenced by the instrumentalism of government policy. It appeared not to recognise the value of education for itself as a feature of critical discourse or cultural life. It is necessary to challenge the hegemony of instrumentalism. This will not be achieved by acquiescence with instrumentalist values and assumptions. 
7.	The CALL campaign was the most optimistic development over the last ten years. It would be a priority to build the campaign with some activity in all regions and in many localities. Some argued that the forthcoming general election could be a useful focus. (In the subsequent section of the conference Robin Landman disagreed with this. He argued that politicians cannot be influenced at elections, they are promoting their common policies not listening to elector’s needs).
8.	Local Learning Partnerships were an excellent idea that was distorted at birth by the National LSC and subsequently killed by regional LSC’s.
9.	The ability to build and deliver programmes of adult learning will be influenced by the age profile of professionals. There are very few new appointments. A younger generation of professionals committed to adult learning is not being developed.
The group discussions were followed by a session in which a panel of representatives from different interests made a presentation and responded to questions which had been developed in the group discussions. The final speaker was Alan Tuckett the Director of NIACE. His focus was on government policy and the recent publication of Informal Adult Learning by the Government. He was anxious to use the opportunities which the policy offered and maximise them (see Adult Learning, April 2009, vol.20,number 8).
I was pleased to attend this conference as it provided a window on a subtle change in the nature of the debate about adult learning. A national trade union recognises for itself a wider role and this is coinciding with dissatisfaction over the consequences of government policy. My own view is that Call represents the best chance of a wide campaign and that UCU could take initiatives to sustain that campaign across the country. Finally, UCU is best placed to argue for CALL within the TUC nationally and within Regional TUC’s. The future of adult learning is central to the future of our democratic society and it is necessary for all the institutions of democratic society, political organisations, trade unions and voluntary organisations, to participate.
May 12, 2009.MJB