‘Teach us to care and not to care; Teach us to sit still.’

To enter into such a place of vantage is being made harder for many people, most especially young people, who are caught between receiving training and being taught.

Without experiencing an untrammelled exposure to learning, to think through to an understanding of the difference between these things becomes formidible.

Learning at its best provides the intellectual freedom to consider and decide without a person necessarily being tied to considerations of immediate or obvious utility.

In this sense the object of a ‘fit for purpose’ education breaks down, and a broader more comprehensive outlook arises wherein a person is educated to enable him or her to understand how s/he is able to move ever-nearer to the ’sweetness and light’ of ’seeing the object as it really is’.

This way is a way of apprehending alternative ways of living, of addressing old and chronic problems with a clear perceptive and hopeful mind.

I am nowhere near as eloquent and well researched as everyone whose comments I have just read, but I can only wholeheartedly agree!

I have 10 years NHS (healthcare professional) experience, then stupidly gave it all up to relocate -to afford to have a family and look after my increasingly failing health/mobility- only to find that although the University I dream of attending would highly value my experince and skills, in order to build on ,update and send me off into my (very realistic and researched) new workplace, I may not get funded.

I have transferable skills, I have experience, I have motivation, I even have potential childcare sorted, I have a realisitc view of the sort of job I want at the end of my studies( in inclusive education- valuable I hope!), but I may end up staying on tax credits as I dont have the training/qualifications to get such jobs therefore I cant provide the “evidence” to apply!

As Ian Ground said
“DIUS has built its case for the ELQ decision wholly on a principle of fairness. ”
Can anyone out there explain why it is so “fair” that I cannot study and work my way out of the minimum wage (barely coping with bills) hell I am in??

I do hope I am not held back by all the decisions I made at 18!!

I’ve pasted part of the article below.

“Another key way to broaden access and extend participation would be to encourage more part-time study and distance learning, for example among older learners. In contrast to the government’s £100m funding cut for second-chance students (so-called ELQs), this would particularly encourage students from non-traditional backgrounds. The current regime for part-time study is indefensible and many universities could do much more to improve their distance learning initiatives.

Full equality between part-time and full-time students, sadly, cannot be reached in the near future. But there are other, more limited, steps we could take to produce a fairer regime. This might mean reversing the ELQ cut. It could mean other ways of delivering better Hefce support for mature and part-time students. It could even mean offering some maintenance support to part-timers. We want to hear people’s views about the best way ahead because one thing is clear: our excellent HE sector and future potential students are ill-served by the current situation”.

David Willetts wants to hear our views for the best way ahead, so lets air them here. What better place?

http://hedebate.jiscinvolve.org/parttime-studies-in-he/#comment-242

Relevant to recent discussion here is this section:

Part-time and mature students

The £100m cut in funding for second-chance students was first announced a year ago this week. Over the past 12 months, it has caused deep unhappiness and this is one of the reasons why we called a parliamentary debate on this specific subject earlier in the year. It is an injury universities have not forgotten. We want to see more part-time students. We want to see more mature students. And we want to see people given a second chance. So this cut in funding is the wrong policy at the wrong time.

I hope to see more people going to university in the future. That may be more 18 to 21 year olds with good A-Levels - that would be great. In a modern society more and more people expect to go to university. But it is just as likely that in future the growth will be from older and part-time students who missed out first-time round or who did a course that just did not meet their current needs and aspirations. High on the agenda for the finance review must therefore be a fairer deal for them.

Like the 50% target, the ELQ cut reflects the Government’s obsession with young people above all others. This might have played well in the heady days of Cool Britannia but the ELQ policy undermines the campaign to promote lifelong learning. And it also damages important professions, such as Pharmacy, and writes people off when they have more to give. The message ministers are sending out is: ‘If at first you don’t succeed, then you don’t succeed.’

One reason for the anger about the policy is that it was implemented in such a high-handed manner. A future Conservative government would seek to avoid such an approach. But it also opened up one of the worst injustices in our higher education system - the poor treatment of part-time and mature students. We cannot ignore this issue any longer. The current regime is indefensible.

We should not delude ourselves by thinking full equality between part-times students and full-time students is likely in the near future. It is not going to happen at a time of economic squeeze. But we must not let the best be the enemy of the good. There are other, more limited, steps we could take to produce a fairer regime.

This might mean reversing the ELQ cut. It could mean other ways of delivering better HEFCE support for mature and part-time students. It could mean offering some maintenance support to part-timers. This conference is an opportunity for you to tell us how you think this issue can best be tackled. What is the best way ahead? Are there other ideas that should be considered? Would a better part-time regime be cost effective by making part-time study more attractive compared to full-time study? We are looking at affordable ways to tackle this problem and are genuinely open to your ideas and views on this issue

The penultimate clipping is from an article in the U3A News magazine, by Peter Kingston. The thrust of his argument is how the Labour government have changed direction from education, education, education to employability and upskilling.

http://learningandqualifications.wordpress.com/

The forlorn who await their damson crop in vain are those who learn a skill or a tick-box competence in isolation, never linking it to other skills nor seeing the wider context. Those who transfer their attentions to more successful harvests, this year’s ‘apples’ and ‘blackberries’, have transferable skills that allow them to recognise similarities in fruit and employ slightly adapted processes to make worthwhile products. For that to occur, the education ‘farmer’ needs to sow and nurture curiosity, experience, creativity, reflection not just this year but every year, from pre-school to extreme old age.

http://www.niace.org.uk/organisation/

There is now solid evidence that learning is good for your health, your self-esteem and your employability.

http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/?lang=en

The Welsh Assembly Government wants Wales to be a learning country, where high quality lifelong learning helps people to reach their goals. Lifelong learning creates better opportunities, empowers communities and helps to provide the jobs and skills that people need. Lifelong learning will help to bring a bright and sustainable future to the people of Wales.

The next section comes from an article in the U3A News; sorry I don’t have a link for it. Author is Peter Kingston.

As Blunkett said: “Learning offers excitement and the opportunity for discovery. It stimulates inquiring minds and nourishes our souls.”

The “vision of the Learning Age” is “about more than employment,” said New Labour’s first education secretary in 1997.

Which quickly changed to this:

From now on employability and “upskilling” were to be the goals of government adult education policy.

If people wanted to do floristry or painting, they would have to pay more for them. The government made clear that it would be reducing the proportion of public subsidy on evening classes.

After the first two years of fee increases there were 1.4 million fewer people taking part, according to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).

http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/95085/Alan_Johnson_second_speech.pdf

Alan Johnson, the then education secretary:
“more plumbing, less Pilates; Tai chi may be hugely valuable to people studying it, but it’s of little value to the economy”.

We have to listen to those who are passionate about lifelong learning, listen to their arguments, they make sense, you only have to read the comments above to see that.

We need education, knowledge, aspirations, hopes, goals, pleasure and enjoyment in our achievements not only for ourselves, but for our communities and our society.

We need lifelong learning.